The California Supreme Court will review a case that questions whether an injured worker's tort claim against a utilization reviewer is barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the state's Workers' Compensation Act.

California's 4th District Court of Appeal in January ruled that Kirk King, who sustained a work-related back injury in 2008, could pursue a tort claim against Irvine, California-based managed care organization CompPartners Inc. and its employee, Dr. Naresh Sharma, for failing to appropriately wean him off his drug regimen, court records show.

“Having the California Supreme Court review is a crucial step in the right direction for preserving the exclusive remedy,” Michael Krawitz, general counsel for Parsippany, New Jersey-based York Risk Services Group Inc., which owns CompPartners, said in a statement.

Mr. King, whose employer was not disclosed, was prescribed the sedative Klonopin in July 2011 for anxiety and depression related to his occupational back injury, according to records.

Two years later, utilization reviewer Dr. Sharma deemed the drug “medically unnecessary” and allegedly required that Mr. King “immediately cease” taking it rather than withdraw gradually “by slowly reducing the dosage,” records show. Mr. King then suffered four seizures, causing him to sustain additional physical injuries.

Under California's utilization review process, which was established as a result of workers comp reforms that took effect in 2004, a request for treatment must be approved by a claims adjuster unless a physician determines it medically unnecessary. While injured workers can challenge denials for treatment, employers can't challenge approvals.

Contending their claims were not preempted by California's Workers' Compensation Act, Mr. King and his wife in October 2014 sued CompPartners and Dr. Sharma in California's Superior Court of Riverside County for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as a loss of consortium, according to records.

CompParters, however, said the Kings' claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision in the act since the utilization review was requested by his employer in connection with his workplace injury, records show. CompPartners also argued there was no doctor-patient relationship between its physician and Mr. King, so no duty of care was owed to him.

The Kings clarified they were disputing the utilization reviewer's decision to “abruptly halt the medication,” not the fact that Klonopin wasn't medically unnecessary, according to records.

Finding that “workers comp exclusivity may or may not apply,” the trial court said the case should be heard by California's 4th District Court of Appeal in Riverside, which decided Mr. King could pursue a tort claim and that Dr. Sharma owed him a duty of care.

According to the appellate court's ruling, Mr. King's seizures allegedly resulted from Dr. Sharma's “failure to provide appropriate information or a weaning regime(n) — nothing about (Mr. King's) job is alleged to be the cause of the seizures.”

In addition, case law says “a utilization review doctor has a doctor-patient relationship with the person whose medical records are being reviewed,” so Dr. Sharma owed Mr. King a duty of care, the ruling states.

Mr. King's attorney declined to comment on the pending litigation. And, as of Wednesday, the state Supreme Court had not set a timeline for review.