Home / Conditions / Paralysis
Paralysis: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes
In 137 published external-review decisions involving paralysis, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 27.7% of the time.
Published decisions
137
2001–2026
Overturned
27.7%
38 denials reversed
Most-fought treatments for paralysis
What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
| Category | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Wheelchair | 20 | 30% |
| Electric Wheelchair | 15 | 20% |
| Inpt Admission | 8 | 12.5% |
| Physical Therapy | 4 | 0% |
| Prosthesis | 3 | 0% |
| Special Bed | 3 | 33.3% |
What the insurer actually argued
Denials fall into different categories, and they don’t succeed equally — so the reason on your letter changes how you should answer it.
| Reason given | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
Medical Necessity The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable. | 99 | 24.2% |
Experimental/Investigational The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument. | 38 | 36.8% |
Typical time to a decision
19 days
Most land between 8 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
22.6%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
Recent direction
Rising
30% → 52.6% overturned, last three years
What the reviewers wrote
Excerpts from the independent reviewers’ published findings — the actual reasoning, quoted, not summarised.
Where the denial was overturned
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient requested authorization and coverage for implantation of the Vivistim® Paired vagus nerve stimulator.Stroke is one of the leading causes of death and disability in the world. Residual neurological dysfunction after stroke is common and more than 60% of patients who survive their stroke and have arm dysfunction will not recover. The current mainstay of treatment for neurological deficits following stroke, including arm dysfunction, is intensive therapy. Unfortunately, although there is some effect of improving function with extensive therapy, improvement is modest at best. Arm dysfunction is particularly debilitating and has a major impact on quality of life.
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for Wheelchair accessories [two-sided ABS footrest cover; titanium frame; push handles; Spinergy LX performance wheels; natural fit hand rims; side guards; scissor lock brakes; and/or custom fabricated seat cushion] for the authorized ultra-lightweight manual wheelchair with Smart Drive power assist. This patient presents with a medical history of T6 paraplegia since 1992. The records document that the patient has been experiencing bilateral arm pain and she has a neurogenic bladder. The patient’s provider has recommended a new manual wheelchair. A physical therapy assessment performed on 6/25/23 indicated that the patient’s current wheelchair is old, too small, and falling apart.
Where the denial was upheld
Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for acute rehabilitation from a facility accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities to treat spinal cord injury, that include the following comprehensive, interdisciplinary system integrating services: recreational therapy, participation in wheelchair sports, robotic assisted rehabilitation, rehabilitation with the Lokomat, rehabilitation with an exoskeleton, wheelchair evaluation, selection and fitting, bone loss class/education, gait analysis, respiratory training, simulated home living experience with caregiver training, transitional care between inpatient, outpatient, and wellness center, discharge plans with integration/consideration of social support and the assistance as needed/available at home, vocational re-integration programs/classes, classes on pres…
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for decompression and fusion surgery at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 level.Studies concluded that surgery should be considered when the lumbar foraminal stenosis pathology is refractory to conservative treatment and requires direct decompression of the exiting nerve root, including the dorsal root ganglia. In cases with decreased intervertebral height and/or instability, fusion surgery should also be considered.
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 paralysis 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.