What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied; applicant entitled to treat outside the MPN at defendant's expense.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision issued July 2, 2021, regarding treatment transfer to the MPN.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
Medical treatment / UR / IMRApplicant prevailedbilateral wrists · bilateral elbows
Defendant failed to comply with the required process to transfer applicant's care into the MPN, including providing proper notice and following the AD Rule 9767.9(f) procedures, so applicant is entitled to treat outside the MPN at defendant's expense.
From the decision · page 7The evidence reflects that defendant has not engaged in the required process to transfer applicant's care into the MPN. Defendant provided applicant with notices regarding its MPN with its initial November 21, 2019 acknowledgement of her claim. Defendant subsequently advised applicant of its acceptance of her claim in its August 27, 2020 letter. This letter refers to the process to obtain treatment within an MPN if an employer has one, but does not specify if applicant's employer has an MPN. There were no enclosures with this letter and no information regarding defendant's MPN in the letter. Defendant's attorney's two letters in 2021 requested applicant transfer treatment into the MPN and provided the link to select an MPN physician, but these letters are not compliant with the required process to transfer care into the MPN as outlined in the AD's Rules.