Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, § 4600(a); McCoy v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1966) 64 Cal.2d 82
Employer neglect or refusal to provide reasonably necessary medical treatment allows injured worker to self-procure treatment at employer's expense
Applied to defendant's failure to respond to July 20, 2020 request for MPN PTP
From the decision · page 3Code, § 4600(c), 4616 et seq.) However, if the employer neglects or refuses to provide reasonably necessary medical treatment, whether through an MPN or otherwise, then an injured worker may self-procure medical treatment at the employer’s expense. (Lab. Code, § 4600(a); see also McCoy v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1966) 64 Cal.2d 82, 87 [31 Cal.Comp.
Evid. Code, § 641; Suon v. California Dairies (2018) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1803 (en banc)
Presumption that properly mailed letter was received is rebuttable; mere allegation of non-receipt insufficient to rebut
Defendant's denial of receipt of July 20, 2020 letter insufficient to rebut presumption
From the decision · page 4mailed document has been found to be insufficient to rebut the presumption. (See Alvarado v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 35 Cal.Comp.Cases 370 (writ den.) and Castro v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.
AD Rule 9767.5(g) 20-day specialist appointment requirement applies only to referrals to specialists, not initial PTP appointments
Applicant's request was for general treatment/PTP, not specialist referral, so rule does not apply
From the decision · page 5The 20-day time limit for a medical access assistant (MAA) to schedule an appointment per AD Rule 9767.5(g) only applies where the MAA is scheduling an appointment with a specialist based on a referral, not to the scheduling of an initial appointment with a primary treating physician.