HOME PAGE

   
GO to Injured Worker Forum
Navigation:


ALL FORUM'S TOPICS OR EAMS TOPICS [ REFRESH ]
Thread Title: EDEX TO EAMS OAR CONVERSION PROBLEM(S)
Created On Wednesday December 31, 2008 7:59 AM


ymcgavin@socal.rr.com
Senior Member

Posts: 1351
Joined: Jun 2002

Wednesday December 31, 2008 7:59 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Hi WCC Forum Members:

I'm involved in an interesting legacy case where I am representing an entity (IC) that is usually a defendant insurer, but is now a lien claimant --- with a lien for over $650k.

(I was asked to represent lien claimant by outside counsel for the IC, an out-of-state attorney who had no understanding of what AOE/COE or CT meant.)

The case-in-chief resolved with a Thomas C&R for $350k earlier this year. The co-defendants offered the lien claimant less than 10 cents on the dollar, so naturally I took the matter to trial. The WCJ found injury AOE/COE, but determined the DOI adversely to my client. Both co-defendants sought reconsideration on the issue of injury AOE/COE, and I sought reconsideration on the finding of the DOI.

Over the summer, the WCAB affirmed the finding by the WCJ of injury AOE/COE, and denied both co-defendant's petition seeking reconsideration. However, the WCAB agreed with lien claimant that the finding by the WCJ regarding the DOI was erroneous. The WCAB granted lien claimant's petition for reconsideration and rescinded the finding of the DOI by the WCJ.

The opinion from the WCAB issued in August. Neither co-defendant sought reconsideration from the WCAB, and neither co-defendant sought a writ of review from the appellate court.

Normally, the matter would have been returned to the WCJ and the case would have been calendared for a status conference. However, this did not happen and the case sat on the back burner.

A couple of weeks ago I asked a WCJ for advice regarding filing a DOR using the new EAMS forms, as I wanted to get this case back on calendar. My question was focused on which of the two co-defendants I should list on the EAMS DOR, as there is only space for one defendant to be named. The WCJ did not know the answer, but offered to look up the case if I provide him with either the legacy case number or the ADJ case number. I gave him the ADJ case number, he looked it up, and informed me that the matter had just been returned to calendar for a status conference.

Well, as I now had no need to file a DOR, I went home. When I arrived home, there was a notice of hearing in my mailbox. I opened it and was rather surprised to see that the out-of-state outside counsel for this lien claimant IC was now listed as a defendant ER. Hmmmmm.

Normally, I would have thought that this was just a typo. However, just recently, I encountered another EDEX to EAMS screw-up. One of my hearing reps from up north had dropped off 5 DORs at the STK WCAB, but was unable to get a date from the calendar clerk. Instead, the calendar clerk informed my hearing rep that we would be noticed of the date and time of the hearing, once calendared.

Not long ago, I received a call from a WCJ at the STK WCAB. He asked me why I was not in his courtroom appearing at the calendared status conference, as the matter had been set on my DOR. I told him that I never received notice of the hearing. He then told me that he had another problem, as I was not a lien claimant listed on the OAR. I looked at our lien, which had been filed in 2005 through EDEX, and informed the WCJ that we had filed our lien electronically through EDEX, and that we should be on the DOR.

Taking me at my word, the WCJ informed me that he would do some investigation, then call me back. Several hours later, the WCJ did call me back. He had done some researching and learned that my company was indeed listed on the OAR as a lien claimant some time back, but now, mysteriously, my company had been "disappeared" from the OAR. He asked that I refile my lien and DOR, and that he would ensure that I would be able to get my day in court.

I'm not sure if these apparent EDEX to EAMS OAR conversion problems perceived by me are isolated incidents, or if they are pervasive. Has anybody else encountered these type of screw-ups?

York McGavin
ymcgavin@socal.rr.com

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



lyounglaw
Member

Posts: 136
Joined: Jun 2002

Wednesday December 31, 2008 11:49 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

York: We've had the same problem with the EAMS conversion. I usually run an EDEX at the beginning of each case after we've registered our representation to be sure it is on the Official Address list. Lately, when I run a new EDEX for the same cases to check for additional parties, we aren't listed at all and a completely different defense firm shows up -- on every one of our cases! It's very frustrating and we have to write to the WCAB about each one individually with a cover sheet & separator for each letter; I send a copy of the old EDEX and of the new one to show how it has changed. We have already missed at least 2 hearings because of the situation. It's a concern because if there are old claims out there that are already settled, but need to be reopened for some reason (such as liens), we won't get notice.

It is a mystery how these things happen, but I hope there aren't too many incidents like your and mine.

Laura

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



thecuckoo
Member

Posts: 22
Joined: Mar 2006

Wednesday December 31, 2008 11:53 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

I don't think this is limited to lien claimants. I have had several cases set for hearing where I have been the attorney of records for several years (one dating back to 2002!) and I have not been converted to the OAR in EAMS. While it is frustrating for me because I hate to miss a hearing, it is even more so in the case of a co-defendant or AA who may have traveled several hours to get to the hearing, only to have it reset because I didn't get notice.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



julia@edexis.com
Junior Member

Posts: 5
Joined: Aug 2005

Thursday February 05, 2009 12:36 PM

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

To explain WHY this is happening in EAMS, we have to understand the data structure of EAMS, how data is automatically added into EAMS when a document is filed (specifically, WHERE in EAMS data structure certain parties are added or not), and which parts of EAMS report to EDEX, and what events trigger new reports to EDEX. EAMS terms are in CAPITALS and BOLD and represent terms used by DWC employees in answer to specific questions my office has posed. EAMS terms do not always equate to LEGACY terms.

In EAMS, information is stored and organized in cases for each applicable product delivery unit. There are six different product delivery units. EDEX deals primarily with the ADJ (or ADJudication) unit. Some data is accessed from the INT (or INTegrated) case, which is the "umbrella case" that contains all the subsequent product delivery unit cases underneath it. So, INT stuff includes the ADJ stuff, and plus stuff from any of the other product delivery unit cases that may be involved (such as DEU).

In EAMS, a single list of all CASE PARTICIPANTS may be viewed from the INT case by selecting the CASE PARTICIPANTS link found in the navigation links on the left-hand margin after clicking the tab marked INT123456 (random sample case number). This list contains all case participants: injured worker, carriers, attorneys, lien claimants, reps, etc.

In EAMS, the APPLICANT or DEFENSE CASE PARTIES may be viewed on the ADJ case HOME PAGE. About the middle of the screen, the case parties will be sorted into two lists. Applicant parties are listed on the left, defense parties are listed on the right. Lien claimants converted from LEGACY may be listed here under Applicant, but generally, lien claimants or reps added by a new lien document filed into EAMS are NOT listed in the ADJ CASE PARTIES.

In EAMS while still working in the ADJ case: to view the list of LIENS, click the LIENS link found in the navigation links on the left-hand margin.

EAMS contains at least these three different places to add a lien claimant or a lien rep when a new lien form is filed successfully into EAMS.

Based on the evidence and reports from current EDEX users on what is filed and displayed in EAMS, when a new lien document is filed into EAMS, it may be deduced that:

1. The LIEN CLAIMANT is added to the INT CASE PARTICIPANTS and to the ADJ LIENS lists, but NOT to the ADJ CASE PARTIES.

2. The LIEN REP is added to the INT CASE PARTICIPANTS.

3. EAMS sends an EDEX CASE PARTY UPDATE NOTICE when the ADJ CASE PARTIES are modified.

4. ADJ CASE PARTIES are modified by a WCAB CLERK. This is considered an EAMS WORK FLOW issue - whenever something must be done by a clerk because it does not happen automatically in EAMS.

5. Filing a NOTICE OF REPRESENTATION triggers the necessary WORK FLOW so a clerk will add the rep to the desired list (so far the evidence points to the ADJ CASE PARTIES list, but this is NOT YET CONFIRMED).

6. It appears that the INT CASE PARTICIPANTS list is not the same LIST OF PARTIES FOR SERVICE to whom EAMS mails hearing notices (also called MAILERS).

-------------------------
Julia Julien
EDEX Information Systems, Inc.
(866) GET EDEX toll free

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



rider001
Member

Posts: 53
Joined: Aug 2005

Thursday February 05, 2009 1:50 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

This sounds to me like a lot of fancy jargon expalining why EDEX isn't working properly. I suggest that EDEX finds a way to let its lien claimants know when their liens have made it into the system. If not there is no reason for any of your clients to continue using the service other than for autopopulate. The hearing notices as of now dont mean anything to a lien claimant if their lien has not made it to the board file and therefore will not be address because to defense attorney is not aware of it. I understand EDEX has no control over EAMS as far as when a lien makes it to the file but does EDEX really expect a lien claimant with thousands of lien to research EAMS to see if a lien has made it? It almost seems better to file by paper so when you recieve a paper notice at least you know your on the record.

I have already attended several lien conferences where def. has said they do not have a copy of a lien because it claimant wasn't listed on the OAR, which is b.s. in itself because they get copied. In their defense they are probably overworked and do not have the time to go through their entire file to make sure they have not missed any liens. They are relying on the OAR which they have done for years and are ready to deal with those liens listed.

It seems that your post is geared towards those who are able to access EAMS. If you are able to work in EAMS there should not be a problem. I beleive the issue at hand is those lien claimants still having to file OCR not know where there lien is.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



julia@edexis.com
Junior Member

Posts: 5
Joined: Aug 2005

Friday February 06, 2009 12:57 PM

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

Believe me, if EDEX could do exactly as you suggest, then my reply would simply have referenced our prompt solution. Rather than just being frustrated, we are focusing efforts on helping our users to adjust to EAMS and locating the cause of what "isn't working properly" so we can get it to "work properly" instead. And let me assure you, EDEX is working properly. That's what we do. We also provide support and assistance to our EDEX users who also happen to be in the EAMS e-forms trial. None of those trial participants have stopped using EDEX. We like to think it is the responsive customer support - even with EAMS questions - that we provide. We are happy to help anyone whose EDEX isn't working properly.

-------------------------
Julia Julien
EDEX Information Systems, Inc.
(866) GET EDEX toll free

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom

FORUMS > EAMS [ REFRESH ]

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