Home / Conditions / Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes

In 13 published external-review decisions involving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 38.5% of the time.

Published decisions
13
2001–2026
Overturned
38.5%
5 denials reversed
Typical time to a decision
21 days
Most land between 8 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
7.7%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
What the reviewers wrote
Excerpts from the independent reviewers’ published findings — the actual reasoning, quoted, not summarised.

Where the denial was overturned

A 51-year-old male enrollee has requested knee brace (CPT code L1845) and knee brace add-ons (CPT codes L2810, L2820, L2830, and L2850) for the treatment of his right knee, status post anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery. Findings: The physician reviewer found that the use of a medial unloader brace was medically necessary for this patient’s specific clinical situation. Although the medical records do not include a description of the patient’s knee in reference to genu vera or genu valga, the medical records do document chondroplasty of the medial femoral condyle. This patient, at age 51, is an outlier as far as anterior cruciate repair in patients. The duration of the instability in the knee is important to the development of degenerative osteoarthritis within the joint.
Medical Necessity · 2010 · IMR MN10-10610
A 55-year-old female enrollee has requested an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) knee brace for treatment of her medical condition status post ACL reconstruction surgery. Findings: The physician reviewer found that it is in the best interest of this patient to be fitted and use the knee orthotic as recommended by her treating provider. In general, it remains controversial as to whether orthotic bracing is needed after ACL reconstruction as part of the postoperative protocol, (Wright and Fetzer). However, the use of an orthotic for prophylaxis in patients who have undergone ACL reconstruction has been addressed through the article authored by Sterett and colleagues. These researchers addressed the issue of whether an orthotic prescribed by a treating physician would likely be effective in protecting patients from recurrent injury.
Medical Necessity · 2011 · IMR MN11-12284

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for physical therapy at a facility that provides weight training, has machines that test joint strength, and has an AlterG Anti-Gravity Treadmill. The current medical literature related to rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction supports early weight bearing, early range of motion exercise, and closed kinetic chain activities. As strength improves, open kinetic chain activities and more functionally advanced work can be introduced, although demanding physical activity is generally avoided during the first three postoperative months. Rehabilitation following ACL reconstruction can require be prolonged. However, the entire rehabilitation process following ACL reconstruction does not require a formal therapy setting.
Medical Necessity · 2020 · IMR MN20-34112
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested reimbursement for Elite Seat patient-controlled end range of motion stretching device. Mechanical devices for flexion and extension are recommended as an option in conjunction with continued physical therapy when six weeks of physical therapy alone has been unsuccessful in adequately correcting range of motion limitations secondary to postoperative arthrofibrosis within three months of major knee surgery. The goal is to address specific range of motion limitations that cause functional limitations. In this case, the patient is status post a right anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft in January 2020. At the time of the request for this device, the patient was five months status post ACL surgery.
Experimental/Investigational · 2021 · IMR EI21-35388

Figures and quotations on this page come from 42,749 published decisions in the California DMHC Independent Medical Review dataset. These are California outcomes — every state runs an equivalent external review, but the rates here are California’s. Excerpts are quoted verbatim from the public record and describe this condition generally, not any individual case.

How to use this in your appeal

These outcomes come from California’s external review program — an independent physician panel whose decision binds the insurer. Every state has an equivalent, and internal appeals succeed even more often. If your care for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was denied, the published record says the denial is worth fighting.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DMHC INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REVIEW OUTCOMES (CHHS OPEN DATA) · DERIVED AGGREGATE STATISTICS ONLY · METHODOLOGY

Not legal or medical advice. Coverage Rights is a self-help tool that helps you prepare your own appeal. For advice about your specific situation, talk to a licensed attorney or your doctor.

Fighting a denial for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? 38.5% won.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39