Constitutionality of the 24 visit limit for chiropractic work comp

Around 4 years ago, chiropractors were shocked and surprised when the law was changed in California so that if you were injured at work, you could at most receive 24 visits to the chiropractor.

It should not be a surprise (but it is) that someone is taking on this arbitrary limit in California courts system.

I for one have had injuries that have literally taken me years to heal, and in a few cases decades. I have seen plenty of patients who take years or decades to fully improve from some severe injury. This can involve them needing literally hundreds of chiropractic visits to reach their maximum improvement.

The way the law works now, is that if you are at work, fall of a crane, break your spine, and severely injure the discs and muscles, that when the bones have healed from the fractures and you go to the chiropractor, you will be limited to 24 visits, unless the insurance company decides to give you more visits, which in my experience is so rare that I personally have never seen it.

The following is an exerpt from a letter written by Roger W. Calton who is an attorney in Orange County who I have known for many years.

The challenges in this case are very interesting.  The California Constitution creates a complete system of workers compensation which is to include “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 Legislature’s arbitrary 24 visit cap places, for the first time, a limit upon care which otherwise would be necessary to cure and relieve the effects of the industrial injury.  If the Legislature can place a 24 visit cap on chiropractic, then could they lower the cap to 15 visits (as was the original proposal) or to 10, or to 5? 


            Under the current law, the carrier can authorize in excess of 24 visits.  But allowing the carrier to make this determination does two things:  First, it creates a decision maker with an immediate and substantial bias.  Secondly, it deprives the Court of the right to make the determination of what care is necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury. 

The full court documents from the filing are here if you want to read them:

Document 1

Document 2

Document 3

I have been told by Roger Calton that the attorney representing the injured worker in this case is a former justice of the California Supreme Court, and that there is a possibility that he might win.

Chiropractic has lost some serious battles in the past, so I don’t want to promote any lost causes. This one though I have been told has some real possibility of winning.

From a morality standpoint, I feel it is a slam dunk. If a bus driver is injured lifting a patrons bag into the hold of the bus, I really think the employer should cover whatever is needed to help them fully recover.

If you feel like donating any money to help cover what will be significant legal costs, then I have been told you can make a check out to:

Armand Arabian 

and the check can be mailed to:

York McGavin

16821 Maiden Lane

Granada Hills, CA 91344

Legal note: As in all things I have made my own attempts using sources I trust to verify the above. I aint no attorney, and the above sure as heck is not legal advice. If you are interested in the above matter do your own research and check out the facts especially before donating any money.

Here is the courts website so you can continue your research there.

1 Reply to “Constitutionality of the 24 visit limit for chiropractic work comp”

  1. I have never heard of this cap before. I would imagine it is in place so that the insurance companies don’t go bankrupt? Hmm. I wonder if that’s the case. I do not believe it is right to have to limit things of this nature. Would it be interesting if your Full-Coverage auto insurance were to fix your, say, front end vehicle damage to its original state however “limit” itself to not fixing the headlights and, well, the left blinker. Yeah that sounds fair…. (sarcasm!) I wonder if that is a good analogy.

Leave a Reply

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