HOME PAGE

   
GO to Injured Worker Forum
Navigation:


ALL FORUM'S TOPICS OR UR, MPN & ACOEM TOPICS [ REFRESH ]
Thread Title: LC 4062(b) as it pertains to the 2nd Opinion process...
Created On Tuesday November 11, 2008 12:25 PM


orthopod
Junior Member

Posts: 1
Joined: Oct 2008

Tuesday November 11, 2008 12:25 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Hello there. My name is Crystal and I manage an WC Orthopaedic Clinic in the I.E. This is my first post here in the forum so please bear with me...

My questions pertains specifically to LC 4062(b) and the process following UR's denial of the PTP's recommendation for spinal surgery.

LC 4062 states, "If either the employee or employer objects to a medical determination made by the treating physician concerning any medical issues not covered by Section 4060 or 4061 and not subject to Section 4610, the objecting party shall notify the other party in writing of the objection within 20 days of receipt of the report if the employee is represented by an attorney or within 30 days of receipt of the report if the employee is not represented by an attorney. Employer objections to the treating physician's recommendation for spinal surgery shall be subject to subdivision (b)..."

(b) The employer may object to a report of the treating physician recommending that spinal surgery be performed within 10 days of the receipt of the report. If the employee is represented by an attorney, the parties shall seek agreement with the other party on a california licensed board-certified or board-eligible orthopedic surgeon or neurosurgeon to prepare a second opinion report resolving the disputed surgical recommendation. If no agreement is reached within 10 days, or if the employee is not represented by an attorney, an orthopedic surgeon or neurosurgeon shall be randomly selected by the administrative director to prepare a second opinion report resolving the disputed surgical recommendation. Examinations shall be scheduled on an expedited basis. The second opinion report shall be served on the parties within 45 days of receipt of the treating physician's report. If the second opinion report recommends surgery, the employer shall authorize the surgery. If the second opinion report does not recommend surgery, the employer shall file a declaration of readiness to proceed. The employer shall not be liable for medical treatment costs for the disputed surgical procedure, whether through a lien filed with the appeals board or as a self-procured medical expense, or for periods of temporary disability resulting from the surgery, if the disputed surgical procedure is performed prior to the completion of the second opinion process required by this subdivision."

With that said, we have recently noticed a change in the process following UR's denial of the PTP's recommended spinal surgery. Several months ago our patients (both represented and unrepresented) began receiving information to proceed with the PQME process with the copy of the UR determination denying surgery. The first administrator to do this was at SCIF. When I asked that administrator the reason for this change he directed me to the Brasher case. When review of the Brasher case failed to provide me with an explanation we began directing our patients to the AD to begin the 2nd Opinion process on their own.

However, I still have questions as to why LC 4062(b) is not being followed?? If there is anyone that could enlighten me I would greatly appreciate it. Has there been changes to the LC? Or case law that has specified that the PQME process is it??

Thank you so much for your help and I look forward to discussing this further.


-------------------------
Crystal

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



gaiassoul1@yahoo.com
Senior Member

Posts: 1275
Joined: Feb 2004

Tuesday November 11, 2008 4:59 PM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

the PQME process is not it, it is usually sent simultaneously with the list of AMEs the insurance company would find acceptable to the applicant attorney. Given the time it takes to get a panel assigned, this is just good examining when the applicant is already limited to two years TTD. That way if there is no response from the applicant attorney as to an AME, which there is usually not -- the panel can just be requested at the end of all statutory time frames and keep the case moving.

If the parties agree to an AME, the panel is then just tossed if received after the AME agreement.

It really is to the injured worker's benefit -- proactive for both parties.

Further you won't get a PQME panel unless you can prove that for a represented worker you named and offered at least one specific AME

Edited: Tuesday November 11, 2008 at 4:59 PM by gaiassoul1@yahoo.com

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



jakelast@aol.com
Senior Member

Posts: 1024
Joined: Jun 2002

Tuesday November 11, 2008 8:46 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

The panel qme process is not used to contest a UR determination regarding spinal surgery. That process requires the Second surgical opinion under LC 4062(b). Once UR has indicated the surgery is not medically indicated, the employee is obligated to contest that process using 4062(b). An attempt at AME agreement is mandated for that process in a represented case. Failing an ame the Medical Unit will assign a single spinal surgeon to provide a second opinion, not a panel of QMEs.

If a defendant is advising that in response to an objection to the UR determination rejecting spinal surgery, a QME panel is needed, it is not providing the correct information. The second surgical opinion process is mandatory and must be followed or the employee will have waived the right to contest the surgical issue. Brasher sets out this entire process but does not suggest a QME panel, it deals with the 2nd surgical opinion process only.

Jake Jacobsmeyer
Shaw, Jacobsmeyer, Crain, Claffey & Nix

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



orthopod
Junior Member

Posts: 2
Joined: Apr 2005

Wednesday November 12, 2008 11:17 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Thank you both for your responses.

Jake- The fact that I am not the only one that believes this process has not changed gives me great confidence. For so long I have been trying to discuss this with the various administrators that cross my path and to date I have not been able to get a definitive answer.

I am very excited to have this forum as a new tool to discuss and troubleshoot the issues that we encounter in this crazy WC system. Thank you again and I look forward to chatting with you all in the future!

Sincerely,

Crystal





Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



tc
Junior Member

Posts: 1
Joined: Mar 2004

Sunday March 01, 2009 1:52 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Spinal surgery requests are controlled by the SSSOP [spinal surgery second opinion procedure]. This was explained in the WCAB significant panel decision Brasher v Nationwide Studio Fund (2006) 71 CCC 1282, which was recently followed in the panel decision Baldridge v. Vons 2008 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS ---

When an employer receives a spinal surgery treatment request, the employer may:
(1) accept the spinal surgery treatment request;
(2) deny the spinal surgery treatment request via UR;
[and the applicant may appeal a UR denial of spinal surgery by filing DWC 233]
(3) send the spinal surgery treatment request directly to DWC via form 233; or
(4) do both (2) and (3) timely.

IF there was a spinal surgery treatment request; and
IF the employer timely denied it via UR;
THEN the applicant has the burden of appealing that UR denial by filing DWC Form 233.


null

Tammy Baldridge v. Vons  2008 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS ---
Medical TreatmentUtilization ReviewSpinal SurgeryWCAB rescinded WCJ's finding that applicant/retail sales manager with 3/13/2008 cervical injury was entitled to spinal surgery consisting of an "anterior cervical discectomy at C5-C6 with interbody fusion and instrumentation," as recommended by treating neurosurgeon, on basis that defendant's objection to spinal surgery was untimely under Labor Code ᄃ 4062(b) and that medical evidence was insufficient to support denial of surgery, when WCAB found that defendant timely issued utilization review denial of surgery under Labor Code ᄃ 4610(g)(1) within five working days of receiving request for surgery and that, pursuant to Brasher v. Nationwide Studio Fund (2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 229 (writ denied), applicant applicant was then required to seek spinal surgery second opinion under Labor Code ᄃ 4062(b), rendering issue of whether defendant objected within Labor Code ᄃ 4062(b) timelines irrelevant pursuant to State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WCAB (Sandhagen) (2008) 44 Cal.4th 230, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 171, 186 P.3d 535, 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 981 and Brasher, but that defendant's objection under Labor Code ᄃ 4062(b) relieved applicant of her obligation to initiate Labor Code ᄃ 4062 process since applicant may have relied on fact that defendant already initiated process; WCAB held that, contrary to Labor Code 4600(b) and Sandhagen, neurosurgeon's opinion, upon which WCJ relied, was insufficient to establish applicant's entitlement to spinal surgery because opinion made no reference to ACOEM Guidelinesi.e., did not explain why recommendation for surgery was consistent with ACOEM Guidelines or why ACOEM Guidelines were not appropriate so as to rebut application of Guidelinesand other medical evidence in record indicated that recommended surgery was inconsistent with ACOEM Guidelines.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom

FORUMS > UR, MPN & ACOEM [ REFRESH ]

FuseTalk 3.0 - Copyright © 1999-2002 e-Zone Media Inc. All rights reserved.
© 2013 WorkCompCentral Workers Compensation Forums