Where this sits
- Chapter 4.5.
- Division of Workers' Compensation
- Subchapter 1. Administrative Director--Administrative Rules
- Article 3.5. Medical Provider Networks
The regulation, as printed
What panels did with this rule
Released decisions that named § 9767.12, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.
- ADJ15329380 · 2025-10-31 · Anaheim District Office8 CCR § 9767.12
Determinative passage · p.6(Lab. Code, § 5811(b)(2).) Here, defendant contends that the medical treatment given by Dr. Russman, during which time the disputed interpreting services were used, was not reasonable and necessary because applicant improperly treated outside the defendant's MPN, and, as a result, lien claimant's services are similarly unreasonable, unnecessary, and non-recoverable. (Petition, p. 2.) As parties are well aware, it is defendant's burden to establish the existence of the MPN, and that written notification of the MPN, and all other requisite information under AD Rule 9767.12, was provided to applicant, both before and after the subject injury. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9767.12.) Treatment through the MPN must also be accessible, not neglectful, and actually available to applicant. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9767.5; Lab. Code, § 4600(a); see also McCoy v. I.A.C. (1966) 64 Cal.2d 82, 87 [31 Cal.Comp.Cases 93] ["the employer is required to provide treatment which is reasonably necessary to cure or relieve the employee's distress, and if he neglects or refuses to do so, he must reimburse the employee for his expenses in obtaining such treatment"].) Although notice of the MPN was apparently given to applicant after the injury (Defense Exhibit C), defendant failed to produce evidence that Dr. Greene was in fact listed within the MPN and provided actual treatment to applicant.
Applied to determine whether applicant improperly treated outside the MPN.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ15777619 · 2025-10-13 · Anaheim District Office8 CCR § 9767.12
Determinative passage · p.6Defendant contends that applicant has not met her burden to establish neglect or a refusal to provide treatment. This burden however is misplaced, it is the defendant's burden to establish the existence of the MPN, that defendant provided the required Notices of the MPN, 8 Cal. Code of Regs. § 9767.12, both prior to the injury and subsequent to the injury, and that treatment was provided and not neglected. In order to meet this burden, the defendant must submit evidence of its MPN, the notices provided and the treatment offered. The defendant did not submit any evidence, either documentary or through testimony, to meet its burden. As set forth in the Opinion on Decision, the court addressed Knight v. United Parcel Service (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cas. 1423 as well as Senate Bill 863 which resulted in Labor Code § 4616.3(b)1 being implemented. In its analysis, the court held as follows:
Applied to find defendant failed to meet burden of proof, resulting in denial of reconsideration and allowance for applicant to treat outside MPN.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ13323913 · 2024-12-16 · Los Angeles District Office8 CCR § 9767.12
Determinative passage · p.6AD Rule 9767.12 provides for notification of the MPN as follows: (a) When an injury is reported or an employer has knowledge of an injury that is subject to an MPN or when an employee with an existing injury is required to transfer treatment to an MPN, a complete written MPN employee notification with the information specified in paragraph (2) of this subdivision, shall be provided to the covered employee by the employer or the insurer for the employer. This MPN notification shall be provided to employees in English and also in Spanish if the employee primarily speaks Spanish.
Defendant's April 9, 2020 letter failed to meet notification requirements, contributing to liability for treatment costs.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ808475 · 2023-08-25 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 9767.12
Determinative passage · p.2The injured employee may be transferred into the MPN for medical treatment unless certain exceptions apply. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9767.9(a).) One exception allows an additional year of treatment outside the MPN when the injured employee has a serious chronic condition. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9767.9(e)(2).) Applicant was provided with an additional year of treatment outside of the MPN due to his serious chronic condition. (Report, pp. 3-4.)
Defendant followed the required steps for transfer to MPN, and applicant received proper notice and additional time for treatment outside the MPN due to a serious chronic condition.
Official decision · page 2 →
Rules beside this one
Article 3.5. Medical Provider Networks — regulations rarely stand alone, and the answer is often two sections away.
- § 9767.1Medical Provider Networks -- Definitions.1 decisions
- § 9767.10Continuity of Care Policy.1 decisions
- § 9767.11Economic Profiling Policy
- § 9767.13Denial of Approval of Application or Reapproval; Re-Evaluation.
- § 9767.14Probation, Suspension or Revocation of Medical Provider Network Plan; Hearing.
- § 9767.15Compliance with Current MPN Regulations; Reapproval.