Short answer. No, not for that worsening specifically. The System shall not be liable for compensation for any aggravation of the employee’s injury or sickness resulting from unauthorized changes by the employee of physicians, hospitals, appliances, supplies, or other medical services or facilities.
What the law says
shall not be liable for compensation for any aggravation of the employee’s injury or sickness resulting from unauthorized changes by the employee of medical services, appliances, supplies, hospitals, rehabilitation facilities or physicians
Labor Code, Article 186 — System May Change Providers. Read the full provision →
Who actually controls the choice of provider
The provision starts by placing the actual authority to select or change medical providers squarely with the System, not with the individual employee: it shall have the authority to choose or order a change of physician, hospital or rehabilitation facility for the employee. That framing matters because it explains why a change you make on your own initiative, without going through the System first, is treated so very differently from a change the System itself orders or expressly approves in advance.
The consequence of switching without authorization
The rule is direct about the financial consequence: the System shall not be liable for compensation for any aggravation of your injury or sickness that results from an unauthorized change you made of medical services, appliances, supplies, hospitals, rehabilitation facilities, or physicians. Switching to your own doctor without going through the proper channel falls squarely within that description, since it is exactly and precisely the kind of unauthorized change this particular provision has in mind here.
What this does and does not affect
The exclusion is specifically tied to aggravation resulting from the unauthorized change — worsening that is directly connected to the switch itself. It is written as a liability rule about that particular consequence, not a blanket statement about every aspect of your claim, so it is worth understanding this provision as addressing that one specific risk rather than wiping out your entire entitlement to compensation in general. Compensation for the original injury or sickness itself, unconnected to the unauthorized change, is not what this exclusion reaches.
Why authorization matters going forward
Because the System retains authority over the choice of provider, keeping any change of physician or medical facility within that authorized process is what preserves your protection against this particular exclusion. Going outside that process on your own personal initiative is exactly the situation this provision addresses, and it does so by shifting the financial risk of any resulting aggravation squarely away from the System and squarely and directly onto you as the employee who made the change.