Jesus Cordova was awarded 100% disability and future medical care as a result of his injury while employed by Graventa Enterprises who was insured by the State Fund. The current dispute involved the future medical care, and the UR process. The WCJ found that the defendant issued utilization review non-certification notices on June 28 and July 19,2013 and that neither denial was communicated timely to the applicant’s primary treating physician or accompanied by the required Independent Medical Review form, thereby rendering the denials inadmissible. The WCJ awarded the contested medical treatment, penalties, and attorney’s fees.
In a Petition for Reconsideration, the State Fund claimed in essence, that the WCJ erred in awarding the contested medical treatment, penalties, and attorneys fees, arguing that the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to decide a dispute over a utilization review decision which was communicated to the primary treating physician on or after July l, 2013 and in refusing to apply Labor Code section 4610(9)(6) to a request for treatment which issued within 12 months of a utilization review decision denying the same treatment. Defendant also contends that the WCJ is without power to award an attorney fee for enforcement of a medical award.
The WCAB panel in the case of Cordova v Graventa Enterprises that Labor Code section 4610.5, which provides for independent medical review of utilization review decisions, applies to “any dispute over a utilization review decision if the decision is communicated to the requesting physician on or after July l, 2013, regardless of the date of injury. However none of the disputed denials of treatment were communicated to a requesting physician on or after July 1.2013, thus none of the disputed utilization review decisions are subject to independent medical review.
Labor code section 4610(9)(6) provides that “A utilization review decision to modify, delay, or deny a treatment recommendation shall remain effective for 12 months from the date of the decision without further action by the employer with regard to any further recommendation by the same physician for the same treatment unless the further recommendation is supported by a documented change in the facts material to the basis of the utilization review decision.” The record had insufficient evidence to determine whether the utilization review decision or decisions were timely made and whether defendant relied on section 4610(e)(6) or submitted additional requests for that prescription to utilization review. Thus this issue was deferred with jurisdiction reserved at the trial level.
On the issue of penalties, defendant’s delay of treatment that was authorized by a utilization review physician was unreasonable. However, with respect to the denied prescription for Nucynta, defendant could reasonably rely on the utilization review denial. Accordingly,the Findings and Award was amended to award a penalty and an attorneys fee on the delayed provision of Neurontin. Applicant’s attorney is entitled to a fee pursuant to Labor Code section 5814.5 for successfully enforcing an award.
The WCAB also decided to “admonish defendant that applicant has an award of medical treatment and the utilization review cycle of denials and authorizations for applicant’s prescription medications appears arbitrary. While defendant is entitled to submit every prescription request to utilization review, we suggest that defendant should consider whether doing so is cost effective and fulfills its obligation to provide applicant with medical treatment to cure or relieve him from the effects of his industrial injury.”