Constitutionality of 24-Visit Caps – CWCI Amicus Brief

Two weeks from next Monday (March 10), the California First District Court of Appeal is set to hear arguments in Facundo-Guerrero v. Nurserymen’s Exchange and Argonaut Insurance — a case involving a Constitutional challenge to the 24-visit chiropractic cap [LC 4604.5(d)(1)] imposed by SB 228.

Last summer, a San Francisco trial judge ruled that an injured worker who suffered back and leg injuries while working at the Nurserymen’s Exchange in February 2005 is not entitled to more than the 24 chiropractic visits due the cap adopted by state lawmakers as part of the 2003 reform bill. In appealing the ruling, the applicant’s attorney argues that the caps are “arbitrary and capricious” and asserts that the Constitutional guarantee entitling injured workers to all reasonable and necessary medical care to cure and relieve their work injury trumps any statutory restrictions on treatment or the number of physical medicine visits.

The case provides an opportunity to support the plenary authority of the Legislature to craft a complete workers’ compensation system and to articulate the rational basis for restrictions on workers’ compensation medical care. The Institute has filed the attached amicus brief, prepared by Michael Marks (Law Offices of Saul Allweiss), in support of maintaining the caps.

http://www.cwci.org/document.php?file=241.pdf

BY/