Yes, it would have been nice to see what the SC would have said; but in a way we kind of know b/c they did not take it up.
Initially I was uncomfortable about the scheme but then I relaized that before IMR the only avenue for appeal to the courts was to the CoA (the WCAB is not part of the judicial branch). Some high percentage (perhaps as high as 99.9% I can't say for sure) of the time that review never materialized either. As you know a court of appeal can not retry the facts of a case, it can only look to whether there is substantial evidence to support what the finder of fact found. In the case of treatment requests conforming to the MTUS the question is rather rudimentary in what did the provider submit, and does that work-up justify the recommendation?
The glaring hole I see is that if the UR decision is not timely then a WCJ is going to possibly subject the injured worker to treatment that otherwise can't be justified under the MTUS. How can a WCJ know if doing so would harm the injured worker? Hopefully the Governor will sign the Bill that will shine a light on the providers who routinely have their treatment requests found to be deficient and unsupported by the MTUS.