What developments in California workers’ compensation stand out in the first half of 2024?
I just returned after an extended holiday from comp and wanted to separate the wheat from the chaff. What recent developments would stand out?
This is Part 1 of my picks for the top developments through mid-2024, in no particular order:
1. User funding has protected the California Division of Workers’ Compensation from cuts and freezes that will affect many other state programs.
The final enacted state budget includes the following:
2. 2024 will not be a year for any grand legislative deals that might boost permanent disability benefits, but at midyear, a few significant workers’ compensation bills were in play.
Less contentious bills that are likely to land on the governor’s desk include the following:
Bills that failed to advance included:
3. The legal wars over employee misclassification continue, as AB 5 and Proposition 22 remained the subject of appellate litigation in the first half of 2024, with probable implications.
The ABC employment test used by the California Supreme Court in the 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court was adopted by the Legislature in 2019 as AB 5, but legal challenges followed. In June 2024, the U.S. Court Of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in Lydia Olson V. State of California that AB 5 was not unconstitutional as a violation of the equal protection clause.
Oral argument at the California Supreme Court was held in May in Castellanos v. State of California, and a decision is likely coming soon. The principal issue before the Supreme Court is whether Prop. 22 (the Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act, i.e., Business & Professions Code 7451, et seq.) unconstitutionally infringes upon the plenary power of the Legislature established by Article XIV of the California Constitution. The consensus among those who observed the oral argument was that the California Supreme Court is unlikely to declare Prop. 22 unconstitutional and that it may uphold the ruling of the 1st District Court of Appeal in Hector Castellanos v. California.
Castellanos will likely hand a victory to the platform gig companies, but other companies are losing in litigation to avoid the application of AB 5 and the ABC test to their businesses. For example, in a March 2024 ruling by Judge Roger Benitez of the U.S. District Court Southern District, the California Trucking Association and an owner-operator association failed in their effort to be exempted from AB 5.
4. Only one set of new regulations has been adopted by the DWC so far in 2024, but more regulatory changes are in development.
After multiple comment periods, new qualified medical evaluator process regulations were effective Feb. 26, 2024. Those regs deal with QME appointment rules, reappointment denial criteria, continuing education and report writing requirements, etc. Perhaps the most important feature is Section 33(a), which was amended to change from 60 to 90 days the time allowed for scheduling the initial appointment after a request is made for the appointment.
At midyear, two other regulatory changes were under consideration for formal rulemaking.
A 15-day comment period ended June 24, 2024, on a physician and pharmaceutical fee schedule.
There has been considerable controversy over these rules, as the April proposed version would have eliminated dispensing fees to doctors who provide medications to patients. Doctor groups opposed this, citing it as a barrier to treatment access for some patients.
On the other hand, some payers believe that in-office physician dispensing is a source of abuse and a cost driver. The April version also proposed an increase in pharmacy dispensing fees but with a two-tier fee structure depending on the pharmacy volume. A public hearing on the issue was held on April 11.
But lo and behold, the DWC reversed course, and under the June 2024 proposed rules, physician dispensing fees would not be eliminated after all, and the two-tier pharmacy dispensing fee would be dropped as well.
Also pending are proposed changes to medical provider network and utilization review regulations, with a scheduled public hearing set for July 25.
Among the proposed changes is a revised form (called Form PR-1) that would include both PR-2 progress report documentation with an authorization request documentation. A new Section 9767.6 would mandate that the employer’s administrator serve the treating doctor with all relevant medical records within 20 days and provide the doctor with contact information for the MPN and the entity that processes authorizations and bills. The portal would also clarify procedures for treatments within the first 30 days that are exempt from prospective review.
And the DWC has been holding meetings with stakeholders about other possible changes to MPN regulations, though those have not entered the rulemaking phase yet.
5. There were few groundbreaking workers’ comp case law developments in the first half of 2024. But among the few noteworthy Court of Appeal and WCAB en banc decisions rendered in the first half of 2024 are the following:
Tune in Friday for Part 2.
Julius Young is an applicants' attorney and a partner for the Boxer & Gerson law firm in Oakland. This column was reprinted with his permission from his Workers Comp Zone blog on the firm's website.
Nov 18-19, 2024
The Business Insurance Women to Watch Awards is the only recognition program that celebrates leadi …
Feb 5-7, 2025
February 5, 2025 – February 7, 2025. The Business Insurance World Captive Forum, established in 1 …
Mar 6-7, 2025
The California Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) is pleased to announce that registration fo …
No Comments
Log in to post a comment