The case of Saul Zuniga v. Interactive Trucking, Inc.; SCIF involves another challenge to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the IMR process, asserting that the anonymity of the IMR reviewers violates due process and the IMR statute violates the guarantee of right to appellate review.

After successfully appealing an IMR determination and obtaining an order remanding the matter back to IMR for review by a different physician reviewer, Zuniga filed a discovery motion seeking the disclosure of the IMR reviewers’ identities. While the discovery motion was pending, the second IMR decision was issued authorizing additional, but not all, of the prescribed medications. Thereafter, over defendant’s objections, a trial was set on the issue of the disclosure of the IMR physicians’ identities. The Workers’ Compensation Judge issued a decision finding that he could not release the names of the IMR physicians pursuant to Labor Code section 4610.6(f).

Zuniga filed a petition for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a petition for writ of review in October 2014 arguing that the anonymity of the IMR reviewers violates due process and that the IMR statutes violate the guaranteed right to appellate review.

SCIF filed its answer arguing: (1) The petitioner lacks standing since he did not exhaust his administrative remedies by filing an appeal of the second determination and therefore the petition for review was premature; (2) the petition failed to name the DWC, which is an indispensable party; (3) the WCJ was correct in finding that he lacked the authority to order the disclosure of the reviewing doctors; and (4) not revealing the reviewers’ identities did not deprive the petitioner of his due process rights.

The briefing in this case was completed in December 2014 and the case remained idle for over a year.

In February 2016, the petition for writ of review was granted in case Saul Zuniga v. Interactive Trucking, Inc.; SCIF California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Div. 2, Case No. A143290.

The threshold issue is whether the Board correctly concluded that Labor Code 4610.6(f), which provides in part that “the independent medical review organization shall keep the names of the reviewers confidential in all communications with entities or individuals outside the independent medical review organization,” does not deny due process to an injured employee who seeks to obtain medical treatment under Labor Code 4600.

The Court of Appeal has now set the case for oral argument on December 19, 2017 at 1:30 pm. The court made the following request of the parties:

“At oral argument, in addition to any other issues the parties wish to address, the parties should be prepared to address the following: 1. The extent to which the following two cases apply to the facts of this case: Stevens v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1074 and Ramirez v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 205. 2. Whether the conflict-of-interest and reporting requirements in Labor Code section 139.5, especially subdivisions (c) through (e) affect the issues in this case.”

In effect the Zuniga case challenges the confidentiality provisions of the IMR process so that the identity of the medical reviewer is not known by the litigants. Zuniga claims that this provision limits his ability to investigate the reviewer for bias or other ethical misconduct in support of an IMR appeal. The outcome of this case is not expected to markedly change the IMR system as a whole. Nonetheless, it will no doubt be some time next year before there is a result.