HOME PAGE

   
GO to Injured Worker Forum
Navigation:


FORUMS > LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Replying to Thread: Work Comp Executive Opinion Piece
Created On Friday 28, October, 2005 5:00 AM by davidd


New forums at: http://forums.workcompcentral.com
Username:
Password:

Remember my login



Forget your login information?





davidd
Senior Member

Posts: 498
Joined: Jun 2002

Friday October 28, 2005 5:00 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

J Dale Debber, publisher of the Work Comp Executive, has published an op/ed in Capitol Weekly critical of the Applicant's Bar.

It can be read HERE.

-------------------------
David DePaolo
President, Editor in Chief
www.workcompcentral.com

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



ymcgavin@socal.rr.com
Senior Member

Posts: 1351
Joined: Jun 2002

Friday October 28, 2005 7:01 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Hi David,

Thanks for the link to this poopchute's clearly biased article. Geez, without an IW having access to a lawyer in this adversarial system, while the insurer/TPA/PSI employer has an attorney, I guess he thinks that an IW does not need one --- after all, this is a no-fault system and the payor community is always just, fair, and honest about delivering benefits. Hogwash.

There is a very interesting article in this months edition of the CWCR addressing how the table is tilted in favor of the insurer/TPA/PSI employer because of the fact there is no limit as to how much a DA can charge. In contrast, the amount allowed the AA is limited by law. The author suggests that upping the fees for an AA would level the playing field.

I can recall a book put out by the automobile payor community addressing payment trends nationwide. The one result of that study that stands out is the reimbursement for BI vs. PD (Bodily Injury vs. Property Damage) in New Jersey.

The study concluded that NJ reshapes the bell curve for BI reimbursement when it comes to the no-fault system in NJ compared to the rest of the nation. The study also found that if a NJ auto insured was represented, the costs were greater because of an increase in diagnostic testing, treatment, and once the threshhold has been reached, the resulting lawsuit against the at-fault party.

It seems that once a claimant obtains representation, the costs for BI costs for the payor are increased significantly. No wonder the payor community wants lawyers out of the system --- they are ruining the payor's bottom-line.

On a daily basis, nationwide, I see payors refuse to authorize diagnostics and treatment that is reasonable. If the payor is able to deny authorization for diagnostic testing that reveals a need for further treatment, the payor saves money and the claimant suffers.

As much as I usually do not get along with attornies, they are indeed necessary to ensure the payor community is kept honest.

York McGavin
ymcgavin@socal.rr.com

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



rosellavera
Senior Member

Posts: 431
Joined: Jul 2005

Friday October 28, 2005 7:40 PM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format




PS - Dave - you rock! Rose

Edited: Saturday October 29, 2005 at 9:10 AM by rosellavera

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom

You are in message post mode [ FORUMS : THREADS ]

FuseTalk 3.0 - Copyright © 1999-2002 e-Zone Media Inc. All rights reserved.
© 2013 WorkCompCentral Workers Compensation Forums