The claimant requested a change of physician to Dr. Matney. This was granted by Respondents. Dr. Matney then refused to assume care in the matter. This was a refusal to treat for non-medical reasons. Respondents then timely designated Dr. Kawasaki. The clamant refused to recognize this designation claiming that she should get to select the provider.
The ALJ found in favor of Respondents that Dr. Matney refusing to assume care constituted a refusal to treat for non-medical reasons. Thus, Respondents were required to appoint a new provider within 15 calendar days. Respondents timely appointed Dr. Kawasaki, and Dr. Kawasaki was the claimant’s ATP.
This penalty claim was time barred by the one-year statute of limitations as the claimant did not timely raise the issue. Furthermore, the remedy for a violation of Rule 8 is that the clamant gets to select a provider and the clamant had already received this remedy by getting to change to the physician of her choice, Dr. Matney. The claim for penalties was dismissed with prejudice. The claimant appealed this decision, and it was affirmed by the Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
Valdez v. PetsMart, W.C. No. 5-230-123 (ICAO Jan. 22, 2026).
Want to know more? Contact Ilene Feldmeier at ifeldmeier@pollartmiller.com
