• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Call us today for help!  (818) 707-1488

  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn

Friedman + Bartoumian

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Workers’ Compensation Claims Defense
    • Business Litigation
    • Insurance Law
    • Employment and Labor Law
    • General Liability Defense
  • Attorneys
    • Heywood G. Friedman, Founder and Managing Partner
    • Haik K. Bartoumian, Senior Partner
    • All Attorneys
  • Testimonials
  • Legal Art
  • Serving the Community
  • Careers
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Search

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Workers’ Compensation Claims Defense
    • Business Litigation
    • Insurance Law
    • Employment and Labor Law
    • General Liability Defense
  • Attorneys
    • Heywood G. Friedman, Founder and Managing Partner
    • Haik K. Bartoumian, Senior Partner
    • All Attorneys
  • Testimonials
  • Legal Art
  • Serving the Community
  • Careers
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Search

Contact Us Today!

If you see lawyers who are ready and able to collaborate with you to find positive solutions to your legal concerns, you should contact us.

(818) 707-1480

Overriding UR: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

April 2, 2025 //  by Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian//  Leave a Comment

There are times in workers’ compensation matters where attorneys on both sides are bewildered when reviewing a utilization review (UR) decision denying requested medical treatment, especially when the denial substantially increases the value of the permanent disability entitlement to the injured worker. Twice we have seen this done over the past few months.

The first case involved an injured worker who weighed more than 300 lbs. The worker needed surgery but only if performed safely. To assure that, the worker would first need to lose 60 lbs. A supervised weight loss program was requested for the worker but denied by UR. As a result, the worker was unable to undergo surgery. He was then rated “as-is” at 100% instead of 40%, which was the anticipated rating had he undergone surgery. UR ended up saving the company $750 by denying a weight loss program, only to increase PD from 40% to 100%, a difference valued at $1.25 million.

In our second example, physical therapy for a back injury was denied by UR even though therapy was recommended by both the PTP and a QME. The QME thereafter reported a substantial 40% PD because without therapy the injured worker was unable to recover. Had it been approved PPD would have only been 10%.

These are just two examples where the claims adjuster should step in and override UR, providing such action is not prohibited by company policy. Some administrators do not allow adjusters to override UR because management does not wish to deal with an employer or reinsurer who raise angry questions over such action. As a result, many administrators do not override UR only to substantially increase the value of PD far beyond the medical savings.

Here at Friedman + Bartoumian, we are available to discuss questionable UR denials with our clients to help determine if the decision should be overridden. By analyzing projected UR savings and comparing them to the anticipated increased value of PD, a recommendation can easily be ascertained. In addition, a defense attorney recommendation usually satisfies any concerns raised by employers and reinsurers. Lastly, if requested treatment is denied by UR, we can assist in identifying a substitute treatment plan so that the injured worker is not left without alternatives. The last thing any administrator wants to do in any of their claims is to repeat the two examples mentioned in today’s blog!

Category: 60-Second Seminar in Workers' Compensation Claims Handling, Legal, Seminar, Workers' CompensationTag: California Labor Code, Labor Code, QME, Qualified Medical Examiner, UR, Utilization Review, WCAB, Work Comp, Workers' Compensation, Workers' Compensation Claims, Workers' Compensation Claims Handling, Workers' Compensation Defense

You May Also Be Interested In:

Overriding UR: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Lump Sum PDAs: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

The Five-Day Rule: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Creating Needless Claims: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Imputed Knowledge: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Claims Forfeiture: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

The Self-Insurance Exam: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

EAMS Case Search: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Requesting an Additional QME: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Previous Post: « Lump Sum PDAs: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Footer

Practice Areas

  • Workers’ Compensation Claims Defense
  • Business Litigation
  • Insurance Law
  • Employment and Labor Law
  • General Liability Defense

Our Offices

Los Angeles
Orange County
Bay Area
Sacramento
Fresno
Contact Us Today →

Contact Us

Contact our legal office today. Our attorneys are ready to fight for you. There is no time better than now.
Contact Us Today →

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn

Newsletter

Sign up to get free resources, tips, and directory of our firm.

  • Legal Blog
  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Serving the Community

Site Footer

This website may be used for informational purposes only. The information contained in this Website is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No one should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information in this website without seeking the appropriate legal and professional counsel on his or her particular circumstances. The operation of this website and the transmission of information via this website are not intended to and do not create a confidential or attorney-client relationship. Any communications with The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, via Internet e-mail or through this website contain the security limits inherent to standard e-mail and should not be considered secure or confidential. While The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, hopes that the information contained in this website are useful as general information or background material, and while the contents of the Website are updated regularly, it cannot offer a warranty that the information is current, accurate, or applicable to any given situation. ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ARE DISCLAIMED. By the information within this website, The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, does not hold itself out as qualified to practice law in any state, territory, or country other than those in which its attorneys are actually qualified. Additionally, The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based on viewing this website in a state, territory, or country in which this website does not comply with the applicable laws and ethical rules of that state. Links – This website may contain links to third-party websites. These third-party websites are not under the control of The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, and The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, is in no way responsible for the contents of any linked websites or any links contained in such websites. Links to third-party websites are provided for convenience only and do not imply endorsement of the linked website by The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian.

Copyright © 2025 · Website Design By Ali Lapidus · Log in