EK HEALTH

by Steve Kline, Esq.
EK Health Services' Legal Counsel

A Spin on the Spend

In 2004, the cost of workers' compensation escalated to crisis proportions and reforms were enacted. Over seven years later, the costs are once again mounting. A recent report by the CEO of Los Angeles County reveals that LA County is paying over a $1 million a day in workers' compensation benefits and administration.

The more alarming statistic revealed in the recent WorkCompCentral article is that when measured in terms of per worker costs (dividing the total workers' compensation costs by the number of workers), LA County spends $3,693.96 per employee. San Francisco spends $2,949.11 per employee. New York City spends $832.26 with almost twice as many workers as LA and SF combined.

To buffer the impact of the report, a manager in the risk management branch of the LA County CEO’s office noted that the county reduced its outstanding losses from $2.627 billion in 2004 to an estimated $2.069 billion in 2011. With that spin, one can certainly feel much better that workers' compensation costs are in check.

2012 Mileage is Unchanged

How does the DWC determine the mileage rate that is paid to injured workers for their travel to and from doctor’s appointments and depositions?

Labor Code section 4600(e)(2) requires claims examiners to use the rate adopted by the Department of Personnel Administration for non-represented state employees. That department looks to the one promulgated by the IRS.

And the number is …. $0.555. The same as it was on July 1, 2011 when it was increased by 4.5 cents.

 Wrong address? Who bears the burden

The Second District Court of Appeal will be hearing an interesting case next year that probably sends chills up and down the spines of applicant attorneys and claim examiners. The facts are fairly simple.

The case, Barrett Business Services vs. WCAB (Rivas) has been granted a review. The applicant contends that he never received the $17,000 check for his portion of the Compromise & Release (C&R). The defendants respond that they sent the check to the address provided to them by the applicant’s attorney on the C&R, and it was cashed. Mr. Rivas retorts that he had moved several times since living at the address and was living in Texas at the time.

An unknown person misspelling the injured worker’s name cashed the check at a cash-checking facility. Residing at the address where the check was sent were relatives of the applicant, who owned that property. Mr. Rivas had lived at that address for part of the time.

The workers' compensation trial judge ordered the defendant to issue a new $17,000 check. The issue before the Court of Appeal is this: When is a payer’s obligation satisfied? At the time of mailing or the time of actual receipt by the payee.

Stay tuned.

Here’s to continued wishes for a bright, healthy and prosperous New Year.