Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated herein, we will grant defendant's petition for reconsideration and as our decision after reconsideration, amend the decision to delete the award of epidural injections.

At the outset, we note that although the ACOEM guidelines were in effect on the date of trial on February 3, 2004, because they were published in December 2003, they did not become presumptively correct until March 22, 2004 on the issue of the extent and scope of medical treatment, pursuant to Labor Code section 4604.5(a)[Deering's]. 1. On the matter of epidural injections, the ACOEM guidelines state, at page 300:

Under the circumstances of the case at hand, where the ACOEM guidelines were in effect (but were not presumed correct) at the time of the utilization review physician's opinion, the burden still shifted to the treating physician to justify his requested treatment. (Cf., Lab. Code, § 4604.5(c)[Deering's].) Again, although the treating physician, Dr. Crawford, opined and recommended that epidural blocks should be approved, he never provided any reasons or basis for his opinion that epidural injections would benefit this particular applicant and he did not respond to the opinion of Dr. Krohn, defendant's utilization review physician. (Lab. Code, § 4610[Deering's] [Second Enacted Section].)

Therefore in this case, because the employer correctly applied utilization review in declining to authorize recommended treatment, Dr. Crawford was required to explain why his original recommendation for epidural blocks was reasonably required to cure and relieve from the effects of the injury in this employee. (Lab. Code, § 4604.5[Deering's].) Further, Dr. Leppla's recommendation to exhaust all modalities, without more, is not sufficient to justify the award of epidural blocks as medical treatment in this non-surgical candidate.{1017}

Therefore, Dr. Crawford's opinion essentially to try something else is not sufficient, standing alone, to overcome the evidence of the ACOEM guidelines stating that the recommended treatment is not effective . On this basis, we will delete the award for epidural blocks as a form of future medical treatment.

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Reconsideration filed March 30, 2004, be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings and Award of March 17, 2004, be, and the same hereby is, AMENDED to read as follows: