Workers’ Compensation Pilot Program

An interesting pilot program is coming into formation for Butte County, California.  This pilot program will require those seeking to perform contract work with the county to prove they have workers’ compensation insurance for their workers.  For now, if approved, the program will apply to roofers and swimming pool builders.

There are presently criminal and civil penalties for not having workers’ compensation insurance or obtaining inadequate workers’ compensation insurance by fraud.  (Picture the agent selling insurance in the office of the employer, being told that there are a total of four employees working for the company when he can clearly see more than that working in the warehouse.)

I, for one, am always in favor of making life easier for businesses and employers.  Enough of California’s companies are being poached by the likes of Arizona, lured away with promises of New York Iced Tea and some of the lowest Workers’ Compensation costs in the country.

But while I am for making the laws easier to understand and cheaper to comply with, I can not abide the fraud some employers engage in to avoid paying Workers’ Compensation costs.  This gives them an unfair advantage when competing with employers who bite the proverbial bullet and follow the law.

Hopefully, this program will be adopted in more counties throughout the state and for more than just roofing and swimming pool work.

New Proposed Regulations

The Department of Workers Compensation has announced that it is proposing new regulations, mostly having to do with lien claimants.  You can see the notice and read the new regulations here.

The proposed changes include a process for dismissing liens that have been inactive for the last year, similar to the dismissal of cases for lack of prosecution.

The new proposed regulations also limit the filing of liens to new or opening liens, and lifts the requirement to file (but not to serve) the itemized list that make up the basis for the lien.

Also, it appears that defendants will have grounds to argue that an improperly filed lien is not filed and not binding, even if it is served.   The new proposed regulations even seem to allow for sanctions and attorney’s fees for violations of the new procedures.  (The threat of sanctions is a useful tool in curbing the advances of lien claimants.)

I, for one, am eager to see how much of this survives and becomes the law of the land.  It looks like, before too long, defendants might have a new set of maneuvers to ward off the Lien Pirates!  Even for a cynical workers’ compensation defense attorney, hope springs eternal.

New Procedure for the Medical Unit?

Apparently there is a new notice coming out of the Medical Unit: Medical Unit Memo.  This copy is reportedly being attached to all panels now issued by the Medical Unit.

The grounds for obtaining a replacement panel are few, but one of the most common ones is when the Medical Unit fails to follow its own procedures for issuing a panel.  In my experience, usually the applicant will request a panel with the specialty of chiropractic (without any supporting documentation), when the treating physician is a orthopedist or some other M.D.

This is, of course, is a violation of California Code of Regulations § 31.1(b).  Requests to issue a replacement panel sometimes meet with resistance and judicial intervention becomes necessary.

According to this memo, however, it appears that the Medical Unit is not reviewing the panel requests for accuracy and is shifting the burden of following the regulations to the parties.

For defense attorneys, this changes little – as always, we must remain vigilant to make sure a lung or psyche applicant does not get “evaluated” by a chiropractor.  So, as always, I am keeping my DoR forms loaded and my finger on the trigger!

Presently, I am trying to get a copy of the memo which has some letterhead or signature, and possibly a date, so that it carries with it some official weight.

As soon as your humble editor has one, so will you.  If anyone has an official copy, eternal gratitude will be yours if you could e-mail it to:  gregory.grinberg@htklaw.com.

New Mileage Rate Increase as of July 1, 2011

I’m sure you’ve seen/heard this already, but a friendly reminder never hurts.

As of July 1, 2011, the mileage reimbursement rate for medical treatment and medical-legal evaluations went up to 55 cents (from 51 cents).  Labor Code § 4600 (e)(2) requires the reimbursement of an injured worker’s reasonable expenses of transportation.  This is usually simple mileage for driving to and from appointments, but can also include flights and driving services.

The mileage rate is set by the Director of the Department of Personnel Administration, pursuant to Government Code § 19820.  Generally, this tracks the rate set by the Internal Revenue Service, which announced on June 23, 2011, the increase to 55 cents.

This is a relatively minor difference, but it cause a headache to deal with and give applicants more grounds to perceive themselves as wronged, especially when considering the potential for 25% penalties under Labor Code § 5814.

Some thoughts on California’s climate

I’ve heard it said that if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.  Perhaps California’s kitchen has the heat a little too high for a business-friendly climate?

CNN Money has an article that speaks to this.  The doom-and-gloom headline: “California companies fleeing the Golden State.”  Business friendly states are offering their advantages to court California business,Arizona in particular “is trying to capitalize on [companies finding ways to reduce their costs] by promoting its lower workers compensation and unemployment insurance.”

In a similar vein, the Insurance Journal has an article about the 3% increase in California Workers’ Compensation loss and expense payments.  This shows an increase of 3% to over 11 billion for the industry.  Now, my fingers only go up to 10, so instead of counting I’ll just summarize and say that this is a lot of money.  If you are an employer in California, including a city, or state employer, you bled into the river that gushed 11 billion dollars strong in 2010.

Once, the generally accepted method of blood-letting was thought to cure many ills.  We now know that bleeding patients to death was not the best treatment for their ailments.  Sadly, this lesson is not learned with bleeding California’s employers.

Aside from heavy Workers’ Compensation costs, organizations such as the California Applicants’ Attorneys Association are throwing their weight behind Senate Bill 432, requiring hotels to use fitted sheets and long-handled mops for hotel housekeepers.  Perhaps a law requiring all work to be done by robots would eliminate the risk of any injury?  Of course, the law would not need to be implemented as its passage would scatter California’s employers to the four winds before it could be implemented, and no employees would get hurt because there would be no employees in California.

There are several more articles along these lines: taxing, regulating and scaring away business from California.

California’s employers and businesses put their resources and votes behind Workers’ Compensation Reform and produced the victory that is SB-899.  Because of this, Workers’ Compensation defense attorneys and adjusters have a lot more tools at their disposal for defending against fraudulent and excessive claims.

But something is different in the atmosphere now – it is no longer 2005, and the roster of self-insured employers shows more subsidiaries but fewer new members.

The courts have chipped away at the crown jewel of SB-899: the adoption of the AMA Guides, bringing order and predictability to the rating of impairment, has been gutted by Almaraz even with the limiting aspects of Guzman III.

Now, perhaps, California’s employers are finding it better to vote with their feet than with their dollars, and move to cooler climates: ones with cooler heads and colder shoulders when it comes to crippling taxes and debilitating regulations.

I for one do not want my job shipped to Texas or Arizona or any other place that would require me to move to follow it.  I’m guessing I’m not the only Californian to feel that way.

So I’m committed to doing what I do best – fighting tooth and nail to make sure employers and their insurers don’t have to shed a drop of blood more than what’s ordered by the good doctor(s), and sometimes even persuading the good doctors to order less.  Are you going to help me turn down the heat on California business?

Curb Your MPNism (SCIF Style)

A story making the rounds recently is the announcement that State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) has implemented a new contract within its medical provider network.  Labor Code § 4616 allows self-insured employers and insurance companies to create Medical Provider Networks (MPN) which limit the list of treaters an applicant can choose.  State Fund already had an MPN in place, but in mid-June sent out additional requirements for membership to the physicians in its MPN.

Essentially, the new terms restrict the provision of more than 60 days of supplies for opioid medications unless the prescribing doctor shows cause.   Another limit is placed on prescription of compound drugs.  The compound drugs are a money-maker for some doctors.  Because doctors make their own varieties, these drugs are not any medical schedule and have no set price – that bill goes to the self-insured employer or insurance company, of course.  The Insurance Journal has an article on it here.

Here is the take of the California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery on this matter.  I imagine that, even without clicking the link, you can guess how an interest group advocating for a major source of income for its members feels about the breaks being put on the proverbial gravy train.

Taking the position that these compound drugs are necessary to treat patients, the SCIMS is trying desperately to make State Fund appear the greedy villain, denying patients the medication they need.  This contention is easily addressed – if doctors would lower the prices of these compound drugs to reflect a reasonable profit over the cost of production, this cost-cutting restriction would probably not be necessary.  An accusation of greed serves as a sharp sword, but one that cuts both ways.

Not only will a limit on opioids serve to protect patients from over-prescription, but it will also limit the amount of drugs entering the black market.  At the California Self-Insured Association Fall Educational Program in 2010, I heard a gentleman speak about the services his company provided – drug testing of applicants to make sure they are actually taking, and not just re-selling, the drugs they are prescribed!

As an aside, your humble author can’t recommend this conference enough – the lectures are informative, and the case materials and law updates prove to be a useful resource and desk-reference for the rest of the year.  If you have the time, contact Phil Millhollon about attending, I’m sure you won’t regret it.

Basically, some of the physicians are upset that the compound and opioid prescription faucet is tightened to a trickle.  Naturally, the California Applicants’ Attorneys Association is unhappy with this as well.  Inflated future medical treatment estimates translate easily into larger Compromise and Release figures, and increased need for expensive compound drugs and opioids plays to this as well.

So far, State Fund is standing its ground, and I salute its courage and determination.

Just a word on MPNs – if properly established, they are a fantastic tool to cut costs.  The MPN can be used to filter out doctors who over-prescribe, over diagnose and/or engage in fraud.  The notice requirements of MPNs have even withstood elastic interpretation regarding notice requirements.

State Fund is setting a great example, and hopefully more insurers and self-insurers will follow suit.  With enough properly established and properly limited MPNs, we can form a phalanx against fraud and workers’ compensation abuse.

Employers pay for fraud police; DOI gets the credit.

Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones announced that approximately $32 million in grants is to go to the various District Attorneys’ Offices in California to help combat California Workers’ Compensation fraud.  You can read the press release here.

Although I generally don’t like the state spending money, especially at times like these, I find myself applauding the efforts to finance the fight against fraud.  I’ve detailed a few instances of insurance fraud before, including cases of applicants defrauding the state and local governments and insurance companies.  It’s never pretty and there are rarely appropriate remedies for the defrauded – just money spent in benefits, investigation and prosecution that will never return to its rightful owner.

However, good does come out of these efforts, chiefly in the form of personal deterrence, preventing the convicted fraudster from collecting more benefits, and general deterrence, in the form of would-be fraudsters being deterred from stealing from insurance companies and self-insured employers.

The law enforcement community is full of brave, hard-working and diligent men and women, both investigators and prosecutors, who work with their hard-working and diligent counterparts amongst the ranks of the adjusters to limit the fraud plaguing California’s Workers’ Compensation insurance industry.

One part of the press release which ended up giving my computer the frowning of a life-time was the following:

“The grant funding is the result of assessments on California employers that are determined annually by the Fraud Assessment Commission.”

If I am the victim of a pick-pocket, or if I come home to find my house burglarized, I should have access to police protection and assistance in investigating and prosecuting the case.  After all – I paid for them with my taxes.  Otherwise, shouldn’t my taxes go down and I can spend the money on private security?  California’s employers are already taxed – again and again, from corporate to payroll to income to who-knows-what-else.

Fraud is a crime that targets an individual business, but the effects are felt everywhere through higher prices, just like with any other form of theft.  It is unfair to levy yet another tax on the employers of California, burdened as they already are.

Perhaps we should consider pay-as-you-go uniformed police and fire departments as well?

In any case, for all your would-be and currently Workers’ Compensation fraudsters out there… Justice is Coming!

Fraud and more Fraud

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It is an unfortunate fact that insurance companies and self-insured employers often have to lose money to fraud: so-called injured workers who claim more disability than they have sustained.

Because of this fact, the cost of this fraud is passed on to the average consumer, who pays a higher price for goods and services, the higher revenues from which are used to pay for higher insurance premiums.

Private companies are not the only victims, and sometimes the government, sleepy eyed from collecting taxes from private companies (although, not all private companies) and citizens, has its own pockets picked.

It’s not Robin Hood that does this – there are no merry men in green tights involved.

In one recent case, an Oxnard police officer stands accused of workers’ compensation fraud.  Edward Idukas, the law man in question, allegedly claimed he was too injured to work, but then an investigation revealed he was regularly playing baseball while collecting benefits.

In a similar story, Oscar Fuentes III, of Willits, was arrested for alleged insurance fraud after an investigation allegedly revealed that, while receiving workers compensation benefits, he was coaching baseball, performing yard work and other physical activities.  It appears that an investigation was launched after Mr. Fuentes filed a petition to reopen, seeking to raise an in-place award for 45% permanent disability to 100% permanent disability.

Coincidentally, Mr. Fuentes was a manager of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, San Quentin State Prison.

Private employers, public employers and insurance companies do well to hire veteran investigators with a nose for funny business.  The seed money sown in an investigation unit that develops a cooperative relationship with law enforcement reaps not only the small amounts of funds recovered through restitution orders, but also the deterrence effect of prison time.

To the deputy district attorneys, to the private investigators, and to the determined adjusters that won’t have their companies robbed, I say in all sincerity:  good hunting!

Flash News! SAWW Mandates TD Increase

Some news that’s been traveling around the California Workers’ Compensation blogosphere has found its way to this site.  The state average weekly wage (SAWW) has increased, and so shall the minimum and maximum temporary disability payments for insurance companies and self-insured employers.

Under Labor Code § 4453(a)(10), “[c]ommencing on January 1, 2007, and each January 1 thereafter, the limits specified in this paragraph shall be increased by an amount equal to the percentage increase in the state average weekly wage as compared to the prior year.”

As per the code section, the test is the weekly wage as reported by the United States Department of Labor for the 12 months ending on March 31st.

So for 2012, the fate of temporary disability payments was sealed on March 31st, 2011.  According to the U.S. Department of Labor (scroll down to see California), the average weekly wages are now $1,003.55.

As per Labor Code § 4659(c), this increase will also affect the pensions of those employees injured on or after January 1, 2003.

On the one hand, this means more payouts, higher insurance premiums, and a slightly larger incentive to file a claim.

On the other, it provides more of an incentive to fight bad or fraudulent claims.  Remember, even a $50 increase in temporary disability, over two years [see Labor Code § 4656(c)(2), totals $5,200.00.  If the claim is fraudulent, that’s money that no defendant should have to pay.

Slight increases in temporary disability, just like any other indemnity, add up and quickly become cheaper to fight than to pay.  After all, when a self-insured employer or an insurer gets a reputation for big settlements, the claims increase to match.  Just a thought.

Almaraz/Guzman – the howling in the night (Part I)

So there’s the bad news and the not as bad news.  First, the bad news.

Circling the wagons against the Wild West of permanent disability and waiting for the Court of Appeals cavalry, hoping  for a reversal against the ravages of Almaraz/Guzman, is no longer an option.  The sun has set, no Cavalry bugle will sound, and the latest appeal of Almaraz/Guzman had dried up.  Almaraz has at last received closure from the 5th Appellate District.

The reforms of SB – 899 brought several changes to the California Workers’ Compensation system, most of them very good.  Among those reforms was the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition (AMA Guides, or the Guides, for short), at least according to Labor Code § 4660.  As enacted, there would be one set rule for rating and appraising permanent disability, making Workers’ Compensation liability consistent, uniform, and objective, as called for by Labor Code § 4660.  That was the dream that drew our wagons out West to begin with.  Then, came the troubles…

The joint cases of Almaraz/Guzman, to some extent, did away with this portion of the reform, and brought back the uncertainty that ruled pre-SB 899.  Almaraz/Guzman seized upon the language of § 4660(c), specifically the fact that “[the AMA Guides] … shall be prima facie evidence of the percentage of permanent disability to be attributed to each injury covered by the schedule.”  (Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services (2009) 74 Cal. Comp. Cas 1084).

According to Almaraz, and its companion case, Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District, the AMA guides, contrary to the call for “consistency, uniformity, and objectivity” can be twisted and turned to suit the vagaries of “fairness” and “equity,” inflating the whole person impairment rating and exhausting insurance reserves.

Before a series of appeals chipped away at this decision, the only limitation (like limiting a child to all the cookies in the cookie jar), was that the evaluating physician had to remain within the four corners of the AMA Guides, in order to “adequately” evaluate the applicant’s impairment.

So where are we now?  Well, on the final round of appeals, Almaraz and Guzman split off.  While Guzman went on to produce the Guzman III opinion (more on this later), Almaraz is done with.

The bad news is that Almaraz is, for now, the law of the land – evaluating physicians can use any part of the AMA guides to evaluate the impairments of the applicant.  This means using charts for the spine to provide an impairment degree for the knee, combining methods of measuring impairments such as grip loss and range of motion loss (specifically prohibited by the Guides), and whatever else appeals to the doctor’s (and the persuasive letters of the applicant’s attorney) sense of judgment.

Left at that, self-insured employers and insurance companies rightly fear the Almaraz beast that stalks the night – by day, an ordinary man; under the full moon the monster that ravages the country-side of Workers’ Compensation.  Fortunately, there is a silver lining (or a silver bullet?)

What’s the less-bad news?  While Almaraz lets evaluators loose on Workers’ Compensation defendants, Guzman reigns them in with a tight leash.  How to use this silver bullet on the charging Wolfman?  Stop by tomorrow, and you’ll see.