Joined: Jun 2002
Tuesday April 29, 2008 8:14 AM
Hmmm. Perhaps I am missing something as well.
Using the parking lot analogy, it appears as though regardless of the number of parking spaces available on the land purchased by the DWC, there are only 1,000 permits being issued to the entire comp community.
Regardless of whether there is room for 100 or 1,000 parked cars, there are only 1,000 permits issued for all.
As a lien claimant, we utilize EDEX all day long to file liens, look up claim history to ascertain the correct claim on which to file a lien, and to obtain as well as print out the OAR used as a POS mailing list necessary to file a DOR for the purpose of block setting down-the-road.
There are certainly more than 1,000 lien claimants, just in Los Angeles. Heavens, on just one file I have seen dozens and dozens of lien claimants.
Regardless of the land available for parking spaces, whether it be 100 or 10,000 parking spaces, there needs to be many more permits available than there are parking spaces.
One has to wonder if it is the capacity of the EAMS servers that is at issue, with that issue being confined to whether it can handle more than 1,000 permitted users at a time ---- or if the issue is whether 1,000 permitted user licenses is sufficient, despite the capacity of EAMS to handle more than 1,000 users at a time?
If the parking lot (EAMS servers) can handle 20,000 permitted users at a time, but the DWC only bought 1,000 licenses (permits) necessary to park in the DWC parking lot and access the EAMS servers, then the parking lot may have the capacity, but there are far too few permits --- considering the number of those wanting access to park. Thus, although the land on which the parking lot is located may be able to handle 20,000 permitted users at the same time, there are only 1,000 permits available, in toto.
I would submit that the DWC servers hosting EAMS can indeed handle 20,000 users at once. But, it appears to be the cost of the permits charged the DWC is what has limited the number of permits purchased to be only 1,000.
In my view, despite the availability of parking spaces, there are simply not enough permits allowing the entire comp community the opportunity to park there --- regardless of whether it is at the same time of day.
Another issue I have considered is that my company is a lien claimant. However, upon occasion, I represent an injured worker. Will my company be issued one permit, and I another? Or, will one single permit to my company allow me to avail myself of the EAMS system when I am representing an injured worker as well?
I like the concept of full access, but I do not see this happening. One of my most vociferous complaints on a day-after-day basis if the failure of the defendants to serve me medical reports relating to the claim prior to a hearing such as a mandatory settlement conference. If the upcoming trial is all about PD and apportionment, I easily envision that only the reports which address that issue will be filed by the applicant and defendant.
However, I would like to have my liens litigated along with the case-in-chief, as it should be for judicial economy. If all the medical documentation is not submitted by the applicant and defendant, and I have not been served prior to the MSC, I see the MSC getting continued to allow for service upon the lien claimant, then the lien claimant will have to file with EAMS the medical reports addressing the treatment.
My first experience with EAMS happened just last week. I appeared at an MSC and provided my lien with itemization and certified return receipt documentation to the WCJ for the purposes of establishing the date each itemization was received by the defendant --- in order to prove-up the exact date necessary to obtain the proper amount of interest due lien claimant on a per diem basis. The WCJ refused to accept the itemization, and refused to accept the certified return receipt documentation as exhibits. The only document allowed to be filed by the WCJ was the actual DWC WCAB Form 6, the green lien.
Now, when trial is held, and I am prosecuting not only the necessity of treatment, and the reasonableness of charges set forth on the itemization, I will also be seeking the interest due per LC 4603.2. The WCJ will have a dickens of a time determining whether the treatment was necessary, as the medical reports were never served upon me prior to the MSC, discovery closed at the MSC, and the only medical reports entered into evidence were those addressing PD and apportionment. The WCJ will have a dickens of a time determining if my charges were reasonable, as I was not allowed to have my itemizations entered into EAMS at the time of the MSC. Last, if I prevail on the necessity of treatment and reasonableness of charges, the WCJ will have a dickens of a time determining the amount of interest due, as the certified return receipt documentation is not in EAMS.