Court declares Calif. workers comp cap constitutional

Read and respected by more doctors of chiropractic than any other professional publication in the world.

The Chiropractic Journal

A publication of the World Chiropractic Alliance

The 24-visit cap on chiropractic treatments imposed by the California Division of Worker's Compensation is constitutional, according to a ruling by the state appeals court.

The constitutional challenge to the limit on chiropractic treatments, which was implemented as part of California's 2003 workers comp reforms, was raised by Jose Facundo-Guerrero in his case against the state's Workers Compensation Appeals Board.

After being injured on his job, Facundo-Guerrero received 76 chiropractic treatments but was later told by the

Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that he was entitled to benefits for only 24 of the treatments.

Facundo-Guerrero filed a writ arguing that the cap violates the California Constitution's mandate that the state offer a "complete system of workers' compensation," including "full provision for such medical, surgical, hospital and other remedial treatment as is requisite to cure and relieve from the effects of such injury."

The writ also contended that "vesting sole authority in employers to approve benefits for more than 24 treatments without affording workers a right of judicial review of that decision is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power that denies him due process."

In addition, Facundo-Guerrero protested the cap on the grounds that it violated his right to equal protection under the law, compared to injured workers who receive medical treatment not limited by caps, and by workers who filed claims prior to the effective date of the law.

In its written decision, the court stated that "We reject all of these constitutional challenges to section 4604.5(d), and affirm the decision of the WCAB." It continued with a lengthy discussion of the legal issues involved and concluded that "the Legislature has legal authority to enact a law limiting petitioner's right to receive chiropractic treatment. The fact that our state lawmakers decided to allow an employer to remove the 24-visit cap does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of power.... Like our refusal to second-guess the Legislature's wisdom in enacting the 2004 amendments in considering petitioner's other constitutional arguments, we must similarly refrain from doing so under the guise of an equal protection challenge."