Call or email us anytime
(805) 484-0333
Search Guide
Today is Friday, June 21, 2024 -

News Articles

Regulators Mulling Electronic Submission of Medical Records to Speed Up IMR

  • State: California
  • Topic: Top
  • - Popular with: Legal
OAKLAND, Calif. – The Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation on Thurs…

Purchase this story for only $7.99!

Add to Cart

For access to all our articles, check out our subscription options.

3 Comments (One Reply)

Log in to post a comment


Do not post libelous remarks. You are solely responsible for the postings you input. By posting here you agree to hold harmless and indemnify WorkCompCentral for any damages and actions your post may cause.
Anonymous Nov 21, 2016 a 6:49 pm PST

The problem I see with mandatory electronic records in that many injured workers will not have access to or the capability to send records electronically. I hope they will still allow injured workers to mail or fax their records.

The few times I have had an IMR, my claims adjuster set records, but not relevant records. As an injured worker, I would like to send my own records due to this.

I do not think all records in a claims adjusters possession will be reviewed by these IMR reviewers. For older claims it could take two days for a reviewer to read all of their records. That is what AME and QME's previously did, was review the patients entire file. Then they would make a decision based on the entire information AND the exam with the patient. IMR reviewers do not get paid enough to review the entire file (if the injured workers has been in the system for a number of years). They should read the entire file, especially if they are making important decisions such as cutting off all of the patients medications. I just do not see this occurring for what they are paying these ghost reviewers. If they paid IMR reviewers more to review larger files, that would be more realistic. Then their IMR reviews would not be two pages long, and more like a QME or AME supplemental report. (JMO)

Charles Cleveland Nov 3, 2016 a 2:58 pm PDT

I don't see what difference it will make whether they get the records via snail mail or email. I suspect for the pittance that they pay these anonymous faceless doctors they don't read them anyway. They deny care and uphold utilization review denials 84 to 91% of the time depending on whose study look at.

Anonymous Nov 21, 2016 a 6:49 pm PST

True. Anyone can read the past IMR determinations to see the IMR reviewers use the same rational as UR did (most of the time). They may be denying just because it is easier than having to read records and come up with different rational than the UR doctor did to deny it. If we had the names of these doctors we could see if any of them are ....I don't know denying all requests.

Gary Nelson Nov 3, 2016 a 2:58 pm PDT

Since the outcome is essentially predetermined, might as well screw them faster and more efficiently.


Upcoming Events

  • Jun 20-23, 2024

    California Applicants' Attorne

    Attendee Registration Opens Tuesday, April 9th @ 9:30 AM Sponsorships & Exhibitor Applications …

  • Jul 29 – Aug 2, 2024

    76th Annual SAWCA Convention

    SAVE THE DATE! 76th Annual SAWCA Convention July 29 – August 2, 2024 Hotel Effie Sandestin 1 Grand …

  • Aug 14-17, 2024

    CSIMS 2024 Annual Dual Track C

    California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery (CSIMS) is combining its two conferences, PI …

Workers' Compensation Events

Social Media Links

c/o Business Insurance Holdings, Inc.
PO Box 1010
Greenwich, CT 06836
(805) 484-0333