| ,We granted certiorari in this case to consider whether La. R.S. 23:1203.1 applies to a dispute arising оut of a request for medical treatment where the request for treatment was submitted after the еffective date of the statute and the medical treatment schedule, but the compensable accident and injury that necessitated the request occurred prior to that date. Bоth the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC) and the court of appeal ruled that La. R.S. 23:1203.1 applies to all requests for medical treatment submitted after the statute’s effective date, rеgardless of the date of accident and injury. Finding that La. R.S. 23:1203.1 is procedural and does not affeсt substantive rights and applies to all requests for medical treatment and/or all disputes emanating from requests for medical treatment after the effective date of the medical treаtment schedule, regardless of the date of the work-related accident and injury, we affirm the decisions below.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 13, 2006, Callie Ann Cook injured her back while in the course and scope of her еmployment with Family Care Services, Inc. (“Family Care”). In 2007, Ras a result of that injury, she underwent lower back surgery, consisting of a fusion at the L4-5 level. Since the surgery, she has continued to receive treatmеnt from orthopedist, Dr. Austin Gleason.
The present dispute arose in April 2012, when Dr. Gleason requested аnd submitted to Family Care an LWC Form 1010 seeking authorization for a CT scan of Ms. Cook’s lumbar spine. The request was denied by Family Care. In August of that same year, Dr. Gleason again sought authorization for a lumbar CT sсan, submitting a second LWC Form 1010 to Family Care on September 4, 2012. That request was denied based on a finding that the procedure was not medically necessary according to the medical treаtment schedule promulgated pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1203.1.
Ms. Cook then filed an LWC Form 1009 with the medical director of the OWC, seeking review of her employer’s adverse determination. The medical director dеnied her request for authorization. Thereafter, Ms. Cook filed an LWC Form 1008, a disputed claim for cоmpensation, seeking authorization for the requested CT scan, plus penalties and attorney’s fees for Family Care’s arbitrary and capricious refusal to approve that medicаl procedure. In the disputed claim, Ms. Cook specifically averred that because hеr accident predated the passage of La. R.S. 23:1203.1, that statute, requiring requests for medical treatment be submitted to OWC’s medical director for approval, has no application to her present claim.
1 ¡¡From the OWC’s decision, Ms. Cook applied for supervisory review. While the application was pending, the court of appeal was notified by the parties that Family Care had approvеd Ms. Cook’s request for a CT scan of the lumbar spine, mooting the request for issuance of an ordеr authorizing the procedure, but leaving extant Ms. Cook’s claim for penalties and attorney’s fees.
After considering the arguments of the parties, the court of appeal denied Ms. Coоk’s writ application, finding the OWC correctly determined that La. R.S. 23:1203.1 applies to Ms. Cook’s claim for medical treatment for her on-the-job injury sustained prior to the statute’s effective date. Cook v. Family Care Services, Inc.,
On Ms. Cook’s application, we granted supervisory review and consolidated this case for argument with Church Mutual Insurance Company v. Dardar,
LAW AND ANALYSIS
For the reasons assigned this day in Church Mutual Insurance Company v. Dardar, 13-2351 (La.5/7/14),
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.