Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Fifth Time in 6 Years
http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/news/gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20080923&content_id=3533813&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=bos
CT Worker's Comp Commission Mandates Electronic First Reports Effective 2009
The Text of Commissioner Mastropietro's Memorandum reads as follows:
WCC Electronic Filing of First Reports of Injury Memorandum - September 17, 2008
MEMORANDUM NO. 2008-03
TO: | Commissioners, District Administrators, Self-Insureds, Insurance Carriers, Attorneys, Unions, Legal Advisory Panel and Advisory Board Members |
FROM: | John A. Mastropietro, Chairman |
DATE: | September 17, 2008 |
RE: | Electronic Filing of First Reports of Injury Mandated |
Effective January 1, 2009 the Workers' Compensation Commission is instituting a policy that all First Reports of Injury filed pursuant to § 31-316 must be transmitted electronically to the Chairman's Office.
Prior to the effective date of the above policy, the Workers' Compensation Commission has accepted both electronic and hard copy submissions of First Reports of Injury. However, recognizing that business communications are now largely accomplished through electronic transfers, the Workers' Compensation Commission is mandating that First Reports of Injury be filed electronically with the Chairman's office. We believe this step will help reduce costs and will expedite the forwarding of information that may be necessary for claims processing. This will also allow us to better meet the mandate of Public Act 08-03, the new statute requiring notification of claim filing information.
Access to web based filing is an available alternative for low volume submitters.
In the event you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact this office.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Costs Increase Approved For certain WC Claim case exoenses
WCC Revised Professional Guide Memorandum - September 17, 2008
MEMORANDUM NO. 2008-05
TO: | Commissioners, District Administrators, Workers' Compensation Advisory Board, Legal Advisory Panel, Medical Advisory Panel, Medical Practitioners, Self-Insureds, Insurance Carriers, Attorneys, and Unions |
FROM: | John A. Mastropietro, Chairman |
DATE: | September 17, 2008 |
RE: | REVISED Professional Guide for Attorneys, Physicians and Other Health Care Practitioners; Guidelines for Cooperation |
By memorandum dated September 27, 2002, the Workers' Compensation Commission adopted and issued the Professional Guide for Attorneys, Physicians and Other Health Care Practitioners; Guidelines for Cooperation.
The following revisions to the guidelines are effective October 1, 2008:
THESE ARE COSTS THAT YOUR LAWYER INCURS IN REPRESENTING YOU IN A WC CASE. IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THESE INCREASED COSTS WILL BE PASSED ON TO THE CLIENTS.
For your convenience, copies may be downloaded from (the Connecticut WCC) website at:
http://wcc.state.ct.us/download/acrobat/proguide.pdf
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Changes made Eliminating Revisions to medicare set-Asides
"CMS has just released memorandum #11 dated August 25, 2008 and effective immediately it is no longer possible to petition CMS for a reduction or termination of an established set-aside. Previously we had the ability after 5 years to have CMS take a "second look" but that option is now" no longer available.
As always, if you think this change applies to your situation, feel free to contact the office.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Breaking: Connecticut District Court Judge Holds Portions of New Bankruptcy Law Unconstitutional
The Bankruptcy Act provides that as attorneys, we are what Congress called "Debt Relief" agencies, and accordingly, we had to include the statement: "we have been designated by Congress as a 'Debt Relief Agency. We help people obtain relief from their debts through the use of the United States Bankruptcy Code." I have always thought this to be a bit of insanity codified, but that's just my Libertarian streak.
In Connecticut, at least, I have been proven correct.
In other parts of the Opinion, Judge Droney does rule that other portions of the revised Bankruptcy Act are Constitutional so it is not a total victory but at least it is a foot in the door.
The name of the case is Connecticut Bar Association, et al vs. United States of America. If anyone is interested, please contact me and I can forward them a copy of the decision at no charge.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Course And Scope Honored By Lexis Nexis
We have been advised by Lexis Nexis, the preeminent legal ranking firm that publishes Martindale- Hubbel, that Course and Scope has been designated as one of the top 25 Worker's Compensation Blogs the United States for 2008. Whoo hoo!
Medical Treatment: CRB Affirms Employer's Responsibility For Cardiac Evaluation Bills After Chest Injury
Two weeks later, after experiencing chest pains, the Claimant presented to the Emergency Room where, hearing a complaint of chest pain, the ER docs set her up for a full cardiac evaluation---good medicine.
Sadly, the WC carrier did not see it that way and refused to pay the bills for this and several subsequent ER evaluations for chest pain.
At trial, the Commissioner ordered the respondents to pay for these bills. Thereafter the Employer appealed to our Compensation Review Board.
The CRB decision, released on August 22nd holds:
the fact that the medical personnel at (the ER) referred the claimant for a cardiac diagnostic work-up supports an inference that the referral was reasonable medical treatment. Such action was consistent with accepted medical procedures in instances where a patient complains of chest and left arm pain and should satisfy the statute’s requirements as to what constitutes reasonable and necessary medical treatment. That inference is further buttressed by the opinion of the respondents’ examiner, Dr. Edward Staub, indicating that when a patient complains of chest pain the proper medical protocol is to rule out a heart condition. See Findings, ¶¶ 33, 34, and X, Y, FF, GG. The claimant’s complaint of pain in her chest and related body parts was the causal impetus for the claimant’s visit to the ER. Those complaints were ultimately diagnosed as a medical condition causally related to her March 1, 2005 injury. It therefore logically follows that diagnostic testing consistent with established medical procedures to determine what was the source of claimant’s pain constitutes reasonable and necessary medical care.
Hooray for the CRB on this one, as this is a more frequent than you might expect scenario. The complete decision can be read here.