Plantar Fasciitis denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 149 published external-review cases involving plantar fasciitisand overturned the plan’s denial in 40.3%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
149
2002–2025
Overturned
40.3%
60 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for plantar fasciitis

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
TreatmentDecisionsOverturned
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy49
16.3%
Custom Foot Orthotics13
69.2%

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 givenDecisionsOverturned
Medical Necessity
The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable.
97
53.6%
Experimental/Investigational
The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument.
52
15.4%
Typical time to a decision
20 days
Most land between 12 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
9.4%
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

Physician 1: The patient is a 51-year-old man with a documented history of plantar fasciitis. The patient is also a diabetic. His provider indicates the patient has tried multiple conservative treatment attempts including corticosteroid injections without success. The patient’s provider has recommended the patient undergo extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT). The Health Plan has denied authorization for the proposed procedure on the basis that it is considered investigational.Review of the medical literature reveals there is sufficient Class I data supporting ESWT for the treatment of plantar fasciitis. The recent article by Kudo and colleagues clearly establishes the efficacy of the treatment. This is in addition to an article by Hyer, which demonstrates the clinical utility of ESWT in the treatment of plantar fasciitis.
Experimental/Investigational · 2006 · IMR EI06-5196
Physician 1: The patient is a 64-year-old male with chronic plantar fasciitis. He has attempted medications, heel supports, injections, and surgery without benefit. He is now requesting extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT). The Health Plan has denied his request on the basis that ESWT is considered investigational.Although the long-term efficacy of ESWT is not yet known on a prospective basis, there has been some success on a short-term basis. ESWT has lower risk and is not as invasive as repeat surgery would be for this patient. In this case, the patient has prolonged pain despite all available standard therapy.
Experimental/Investigational · 2005 · IMR EI05-4439

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 reimbursement for magnetic resonance imaging of left heel and left knee. Findings: The physician reviewer found that The patient denied plantar fasciitis pain with palpation. Researchers explain, “Advanced imaging modalities, including computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and dynamic fluoroscopic imaging, allow for a comprehensive evaluation of the knee joint. Compositional sequences for MRI can allow for an evaluation of the biochemical properties of cartilage, meniscus, and ligament that offer further insight into pathology that may not be apparent on conventional clinical imaging.
Medical Necessity · 2024 · IMR MN24-42065
Physician 1: The patient is a 56-year-old female who has a history of foot pain due to plantar fasciitis. She underwent bilateral bunionectomies in 1996 and has reactive arthritis. The patient’s physician indicates the patient has failed conservative therapies including immobilization, orthotics, and injections. The patient continues to have pain. Her physician has recommended extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) as opposed to open plantar fascia release to relieve her symptoms. The Health Plan has denied coverage for ESWT on the basis it is considered investigational.Extracorporeal shock wave therapy is not considered to be the standard of care. To date, long-term prospective studies of the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy have not been performed.
Experimental/Investigational · 2005 · IMR EI05-4770

Figures and quotations on this page come from 42,749 published decisions in the California DMHC Independent Medical Review dataset. These are California external-review outcomes. Other state and federal programs have different eligibility rules, processes, and current availability; the rates here do not transfer to those programs or predict an individual result. 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 describe eligible cases completed through California DMHC’s Independent Medical Review program. They do not estimate the chance that an internal appeal, an external review in another jurisdiction, or your individual case will succeed. Use the record to identify evidence patterns involving plantar fasciitis, then check the rights and deadlines that apply to your plan.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DMHC INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REVIEW OUTCOMES (CHHS OPEN DATA) · AGGREGATES + DEIDENTIFIED DECISION EXCERPTS/REFERENCE IDS · 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 plantar fasciitis? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39