CompFox AI Summary
This case concerns a worker's claim for sanctions and penalties against her employer and their insurer. The applicant contended that the defendant's failure to provide written pre-authorization to her chosen physician constituted a denial of medical treatment, warranting penalties. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found no evidence of bad faith or unreasonable delay. Crucially, there was no statutory or case law requirement for the defendant to issue such a pre-authorization letter to the designated primary treating physician. Therefore, the Board affirmed the decision denying the applicant's claim for sanctions and penalties.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case concerns a worker's claim for sanctions and penalties against her employer and their insurer. The applicant contended that the defendant's failure to provide written pre-authorization to her chosen physician constituted a denial of medical treatment, warranting penalties. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found no evidence of bad faith or unreasonable delay. Crucially, there was no statutory or case law requirement for the defendant to issue such a pre-authorization letter to the designated primary treating physician. Therefore, the Board affirmed the decision denying the applicant's claim for sanctions and penalties.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.