Luis Beltran Witron claimed an injury to the bilateral shoulders, neck, back and chest on May 5, 2019 while employed as a laborer by Polymeric Technology Corporation.

On August 13, 2019, defendant sent a letter to applicant acknowledging his claim. Enclosed with the letter was a copy of the Complete MPN Notification in English and Spanish.

Defendant subsequently sent applicant a Notice of Acceptance of Claim on August 26, 2019. An MPN Notification in English and Spanish was enclosed again. The parties stipulated that the claim was accepted for the left shoulder and that Witron initially treated at Concentra in the MPN.

Applicant’s attorney filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim on September 21, 2020. On the same date, applicant’s attorney sent a letter requesting a change of PTP and nominated NMCI Medical Clinic.

On February 10, 2021, applicant’s attorney sent a letter to defendant stating “the applicant will commence treatment with NMCI as the carrier failed to provide the applicant with an MPN PTP per the previous demand.”

On the same date, defendant sent an email to applicant’s attorney stating: “The claim is accepted for the left shoulder. If your client is interested in receiving medical treatment for the left shoulder on an industrial basis, he can access the BHHC MPN and designate a treating physician.”

At an expedited hearing the applicant contends that he has the right to treat outside the MPN because defendant failed to comply with applicant’s demand letter for a change of treating doctor and a request to schedule the initial appointment per CCR Section 9767.5(g).

The WCJ found that there was a delay by defendant in responding to applicant’s request for a change of treating physician, but the delay did not constitute a neglect or refusal of medical treatment. Reconsideration of this finding was denied in the WCAB panel decision of Witron v Polymeric Technology Corporation (ADJ13620994 – June 2021)

The issue was whether defendant’s delay in responding to applicant’s September 21, 2020 request to treat with NMCI constituted a neglect or refusal to provide care.

Applicant was treating regularly in the MPN from August 2019 until January 2020. There is no evidence in the record of any treatment after January 2020. Applicant sent his request to treat with NMCI in September 2020. As acknowledged by the WCJ in her Report, there was a delay by defendant in responding to this request until February 2021. However, applicant did not provide evidence at trial of any treatment (or even efforts to obtain treatment) following his September 2020 request.

The 20-day time limit for a Medical Access Assistant (MAA) to schedule an appointment per AD Rule 9767.5(g) only applies where the MAA is scheduling an appointment with a specialist based on a referral, not to the scheduling of an initial appointment with a primary treating physician.

The record does not indicate that applicant was seeking an appointment with a specialist based on a referral; rather, it shows that he was requesting treatment generally. Moreover, as noted above, applicant did not request assistance from the MAA. Therefore,AD Rule 9767.5(g) does not apply to the facts in this case.

“Defendant’s delay in responding to applicant’s single September 21, 2020 letter asking to treat with NMCI is not substantial evidence of a neglect or refusal to provide treatment such that applicant may treat outside the MPN.”