When an employer pays The Hartford its workers’ comp premiums, the expectation is simple: The Hartford will pay for injured employees’ treatment and benefits. But this week, daisyNews has documented multiple incidents in which The Hartford authorizes medical treatment, but refuses to pay for it.

The incidents suggest a pattern that simple administrative errors can’t explain, one in which the same insurer explicitly approves treatment as necessary and appropriate, but makes authorization subject to invalid conditions and refuses payment on baseless grounds.

Previously, we revealed how:

• The Hartford tried to condition authorization on Medical Provider Network (MPN) membership, which state law and regulations do not allow, then denied payment despite the fact that the provider was in the MPN.
• The Hartford tried to condition authorization on Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) participation, another requirement with no basis in California law,  and denied payment on invalid compensability grounds.

Below, see how The Hartford authorized psychotherapy treatment, then denied payment because the treatment was allegedly "unrelated" to the injury. Not only did The Hartford deem the treatment appropriate in its authorization, but the insurer also paid for this exact treatment, for this exact patient, both before and after the denial.

California law defines authorization as a guarantee of reimbursement. The Hartford treats it as contingent and reversible, in direct violation of state law and regulations.

When providers cannot rely on authorization as a guarantee of payment, who can blame them when they make the logical choice to stop treating injured workers? When injured workers cannot access care, they take longer to heal, disability costs rise, and employer premiums increase. California employers already took an 8.7% premium rate increase in 2025, with a further 10.4% increase pending for 2026.

Every California employer is paying more into a system that is delivering less. As providers navigate bogus payment denials and bill dispute processes to collect on authorized treatment, they bear the cost of systemic dysfunction from which insurers are generating revenue.

The Hartford's employer clients have no choice but to keep paying into this system. Providers have a hard choice: to risk non-payment or to steer clear of Hartford-covered workers.  

The Hartford Authorizes Treatment

The Hartford sent the provider a fax (below) approving six sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy. While the fax indisputably authorizes the treatment, The Hartford couldn't be bothered to include the full authorization letter, instead instructing the provider to call the "claim handler" to obtain it.

The fax neglects to specify who the claim handler is or provide a phone number, using placeholder text "(CH name)" and "(Phone #)," a testament to The Hartford's thorough, conscientious approach to claims management.

The Hartford Denies Payment

When the provider submitted the bill, The Hartford denied payment, claiming the treatment was "unrelated" to the injury:

• "PAYMENT FOR THIS SERVICE HAS BEEN DENIED BECAUSE IT APPEARS TO BE UNRELATED TO THE CLAIMED WORK ILLNESS OR INJURY."
• "THIS BILLING IS FOR A SERVICE UNRELATED TO THE WORK ILLNESS OR INJURY."

The EOR offers no explanation for why The Hartford explicitly authorized this allegedly "unrelated" treatment.

Regardless of any baseless claims that the treatment is "unrelated," The Hartford is on the hook to pay this bill. California Labor Code Section 4610.3 dictates that there is literally no valid reason for a payer to rescind authorization (emphases ours):

"...an employer that authorizes medical treatment shall not rescind or modify that authorization after the medical treatment has been provided based on that authorization for any reason…"

The Hartford Paid for The Same Treatment

Not only did The Hartford apparently consider the psychotherapy “related” to the injury when it authorized the treatment, but it also apparently considered the psychotherapy “related” when it paid for this exact treatment, for this exact injury.

As the EORs below show, The Hartford reimbursed the same practice for psychotherapy for this injured worker both before and after issuing the denial above.

As they say, we can't make this stuff up.

The Hartford's Authorizations Are Worthless

This week, daisyNews has documented three instances in which The Hartford authorized treatment and denied payment for that treatment. The Hartford:

• Tried to condition authorization on MPN membership, then denied payment even though the provider is a confirmed  MPN member.
• Tried to condition authorization on PPO participation, then denied payment for compensability (on an injury from 2019).
• Authorized treatment that it paid for on multiple other occasions, then denying payment for the same treatment as "unrelated" to the injury.

In each case, the provider's only recourse is a potentially lengthy, costly, and payer-friendly bill dispute process, all to collect reimbursement that The Hartford already legally guaranteed.

Providers have other options; fewer and fewer California physicians are willing to treat injured workers. California employers don't have that luxury; they cannot opt out of the state’s overpriced, under-delivering  workers' comp system. They can, however, choose to pay premiums to insurers that don’t deter providers from treating their employees.

daisyBill gets providers paid faster and more accurately for workers’ comp treatment. Click below to learn more:

BILL BETTER: DAISYBILL