4060 (California)

The filing and enforcement of liens (different states refer to these with different terms) to secure payment for services or goods against a workers' compensation award is complex and filled with special rules - this category is for questions and discussion of this special area of work comp law.

4060 (California)

Postby courtmechanic on Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:46 am

Hello i am new to the forum but i have a question, section 4060 which includes 4061 and 4062 states that this section does not apply where there is a body part accepted is this the correct interpretation? the scenario is ortho injury is accepted and treating doctor requests a psych evaluation can the psych eval be self procured or do we still follow 4061 or 4062.

any thoughts on this will be greatly appreciated.
courtmechanic
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:39 am

Re: 4060 (California)

Postby gaiassoul1@yahoo.com on Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:49 am

Labor Code section 4060 examinations are specifically for a denied claim where NO body parts are accepted.

If you have a claim with disputed body parts that becomes a nature and extent dispute which for all injuries after 1/1/05 must be addressed via the Labor Code Section 4061 an 4062 medical-legal discovery guidelines.

In your scenario if the pruimary treating physician requested authorization for a psychiatric evaluation and this was then properly submitted for utilization referral, after expiration of the UR times lines (main reason all requests for treatment should be mailed by certified mail with return receipt --- so you know the day the ins. co or TPA received it) Applicant is then free to self-procur TREATMENT. Any medical care at the referral of the primary treating physician is TREATMENT, not medical-legal.

IF defense disputes the psyche reporting and "body part" they have a duty to object, suggest at least one AME and then either go the AME or state -panel QME reporting. The only way medical-legal charges apply for injury after 1/1/05 -- is if the physician is desingated as an AME, or their name is left after the strike process on the state QME panel.
gaiassoul1@yahoo.com
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:06 am

Re: 4060 (California)

Postby courtmechanic on Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:15 pm

thank you so much for this info....new question is diagnostic testing medical legal
courtmechanic
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:39 am

Re: 4060 (California)

Postby courtmechanic on Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:19 pm

also while i have your attention, i have an accepted injury where i contact the adjuster and she forwarded me to the bill review company who did the and recommended payment, the adjuster put no pay and sent the file to HCRG and now they are trying to negotiate, the review came back at $5100.00 and they offered $1500.00 do you think a motion for cost and sanctions for frivilous delay is appropriate?
courtmechanic
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:39 am

Re: 4060 (California)

Postby steve appell on Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:48 pm

Hello Mechanic:
Diagnostic testing can be m/l or treatment depending on how it is used and by who. For example, an MRI would be M/l if requested by an AME. However, it would generally be considered treatment if requested by a PTP.

Regarding your accepted injury and bill review totaling $5100 with a $1500 offer, does the defense have medical evidence the services are not reasonable or necessary? Is the applicant's case in chief resolved? Your motion for cost and sanctions may be premature.
Steve

appellandassociates.com
6311 Van Nuys Bl #480
Van Nuys, Ca 91401
wcexaminer@aol.com


Check out 'WORK COMP MATTERS" Free PODCAST below
https://www.workcompcentral.com/educati ... ype=online
User avatar
steve appell
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:02 pm

Re: 4060 (California)

Postby courtmechanic on Tue Jan 04, 2011 1:03 pm

Hey Steve,

the point of the motion is to try to get the carrier to make the payment now or if i have to go to trial for any reason (carrier has not served any evidence refute reasonableness or necessity) the motion will be filed. its more for leaverage. what do you think
courtmechanic
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:39 am

Re: 4060 (California)

Postby steve appell on Tue Jan 04, 2011 1:25 pm

Mechanic:
I would make a demand for the complete medical file, and I would not file a motion for costs & sanctions until you are certain that non payment is frivilous.
Steve

appellandassociates.com
6311 Van Nuys Bl #480
Van Nuys, Ca 91401
wcexaminer@aol.com


Check out 'WORK COMP MATTERS" Free PODCAST below
https://www.workcompcentral.com/educati ... ype=online
User avatar
steve appell
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:02 pm

Re: 4060 (California)

Postby gaiassoul1@yahoo.com on Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:03 pm

also while i have your attention, i have an accepted injury where i contact the adjuster and she forwarded me to the bill review company who did the and recommended payment, the adjuster put no pay and sent the file to HCRG and now they are trying to negotiate, the review came back at $5100.00 and they offered $1500.00 do you think a motion for cost and sanctions for frivilous delay is appropriate?


Why did she stamp bill no-pay, disputed or denied body parts? Alleging an MPN? need more info... to determine, can't really file for cost and sanctions unless the case-in-chief is resolved for treatment bills.

Steve covered Med-legal diagnostics, depends on who orders it and their role is determined as discussed above.
gaiassoul1@yahoo.com
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:06 am

Re: 4060 (California)

Postby courtmechanic on Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:17 pm

she really didnt stamp the billing no pay, she just did not authorize payment .
courtmechanic
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:39 am

Re: 4060 (California)

Postby courtmechanic on Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:20 pm

what if the parties go to an AME regarding causation and the AME finds injury and in his reports states that treatment rendered was reasonable and necessary ? isnt the carrier supposed to start paying once the issue of causation is resolved?
courtmechanic
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:39 am

Next

Return to Liens

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron