Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Shock Wave Therapy Dissolves Calcium Deposits in the Shoulder
It was reported in The American Journal of Sports Medicine that 61 per cent of patients in a Taiwan study had excellent results from shock wave therapy to address calcific tendonitis in the shoulder. Article
Maryland Court of Appeals Eliminates "Unusual Ocurrence" Requirement
In Harris v. Board of Education of Howard County the Maryland Court of Appeals stated that a requirement an accident arise from "unusual activity" is not supported in the Maryland Act, and is a minority view in the nation. Accordingly, the Court overruled the line of cases that injected the "unusual activity" requirement. An article in the Washington Post comments on the magnitude of this change.
Monday, June 09, 2003
WCIRB Suspends the Issuance of Experience Ratings based on Villanova and Legion Data
It was reported in Insurance Journal that Villanova and Legion Insurance notified the Workers Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau that statistical data they provided is either incomplete or inaccurate. Therefore the WCIRB has suspended the promulgation and issuance of experience ratings based upon data submitted by these companies after May 22, 2003. Article
Claimant Can Not Extinguish Former Counsel's 20% Fee When Compromising and Releasing Future Benefits
In Gingerich v. WCAB (US Filter) a continuing 20% attorney's fee was awarded on the grant of a fatal claim. When the Widow entered into a compromise and release waiving future benefits in consideration of wavier of the subrogation lien, The WCJ approved the Agreement and terminated the attorney fee and the Board affirmed. The Commonwealth Court held that even though the Claimant exercised her Section 449(a) right to compromise any and all liability under the Act, she did not have the right to extinguish the 20% counsel fee.
The result in this case might be explained by the answer to the question: "If the Attorney's fee is owed, who pays?" The Claimant is contractually bound to pay the fee. However, in the Compromise and Release Agreement in this case the Defendant agreed that it would pay the fee if it was found that the fee is owed.
The result in this case might be explained by the answer to the question: "If the Attorney's fee is owed, who pays?" The Claimant is contractually bound to pay the fee. However, in the Compromise and Release Agreement in this case the Defendant agreed that it would pay the fee if it was found that the fee is owed.
Suspension May Be Appropriate If Overtime Is Not Available For Economic Reasons
In M. Capper v. WCAB (ABF Freight Systems, Inc.) the Claimant pressed the issues of reasonable contest where: 1) The Claimant returned to work full time, full duties, but with a wage loss due to lack of overtime (Employer sought suspension); and 2) the Employer initially contested thirty to forty mile trip expenses to obtain medical treatment in eastern Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth Court held there was a reasonable contest on both issues. Importantly, the Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Harle and stated the Claimant may not be entitled to a partial if overtime was no longer available for economic reasons.
No Supersedeas Reimbursement for Grant of Section 306 (f.1)(8) Suspension
The Employer in Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. WCAB (Exel Logistics) sought supersedeas reimbursement when a supersedeas was denied, and the WCJ later granted suspension for refusal of reasonable medical treatment. The Commonwealth Court analyzed Section 443, and concluded supersedeas reimbursement is for change of status under Section 413 cases, and there is no such remedy in a section 306(f.1)(8) case.
The dissent suggested a common sense approach would not distinguish a Section 306(f.1)(8) forfeiture from a suspension that can be sought under Section 413. After all, the Court stated in Stuart Painting v. W.C.A.B. (Asvestas) 611 A.2d 787 (Pa. Commw. 1992) that the relief under Section 306(f.1)(8) is a suspension rather than a forfeiture.
The dissent suggested a common sense approach would not distinguish a Section 306(f.1)(8) forfeiture from a suspension that can be sought under Section 413. After all, the Court stated in Stuart Painting v. W.C.A.B. (Asvestas) 611 A.2d 787 (Pa. Commw. 1992) that the relief under Section 306(f.1)(8) is a suspension rather than a forfeiture.
Saturday, June 07, 2003
Rating Lowered for Princeton Insurance
Insurance Journal reported Standard and Poor's lowered Princeton's rating to Bpi and the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance is considering placing Princeton under supervision. Article
Thursday, June 05, 2003
OSHA Draft Ergonomic Guidelines for Poultry Processing
OSHA issued Draft Ergonomic Guidelines for Poultry Procesing, the third set of industry-specific guidelines. Article
Annals of Internal Medicine Compares Treatments for Low Back Pain
The Annals of Internal Medicine published a study indicating spinal manipulation therapy was no more or less effective than other therapies in the management of low back pain. Article
Case Emphasizes the Importance of Coordinating Workers' Comp and Personnel Administration
Dept. of Corrections v. WCAB (Clark) is a case in which the collective bargaining agreement required the Claimant to pay back WC benefits when he had used sick time. The case was settled with a Compromise and Release providing that the Claimant would collect about $2,000.00. When the personnel office recovered the amount from the Claimant's pay, the WCJ rather perfunctorily directed payment of the C&R amount with no credit pursuant to the CBA. The WCJ also granted the Claimant's request for 50% penalties and attorney's fees for unreasonable contest. The Compromise and Release Agreement did not reflect that the Claimant was required to reimburse the Employer, and apparently it did not come up at the hearing. The Board and the Court affirmed.
Credibility Determination Paramount in Disposition of URO
In R. Jackson v. WCAB (Boeing) the treating chiropractor's care was found not reasonable and necessary. The Court held: 1) the WCJ did not shift the burden of proof to the Claimant when the WCJ noted the treating chiropractor failed to respond to the reviewer's points; 2) the fact that the treating chiropractor offered treatment to alleviate pain did not overcome the WCJ's finding that the reviewer was more credible; and 3) even though the UR was requested late, e.g. more than thirty days after the billing was submitted, the request for prospective review was timely.
Study Suggests Prompt MRI Leads to Unnecessary Surgery
A study of oucomes of prompt administration of plain x-ray vs. MRI determined that people who had the MRI did not necessarily have better outcomes of treatment. There was a correlation between the MRI and surgery, and the study suggested the MRI pathology may not have correlated with the patient's symptoms, yet surgery was still performed on the MRI findings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)