In County of Allegheny, et al. v. WCAB (Geisler) the Commonwealth Court held the WCJ does not have jurisdiction in an appeal from a URO based on the provider's failure to provide records. The Court observed that a provider could intentionally not respond to the records request and proceed to make its case before the WCJ, bypassing the URO process.
Under this ruling, a prospective URO will be required to recommence payment for treatment. Certainly there is no res judicata effect of the first URO, since the determination was not on the merits.
A provider that has an excuse for not supplying records should still appeal to the WCJ, but the WCJ can only enter an order that in a subsequent prospective URO the reviewer must review treatment back to the date of the original UR request.