Stop Attacks On Injured Workers & Defend Health And Safety In California "Deck Is Stacked"

CA Injured Workers Protest Corruption Of WC and Demand Right To Healthcare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGvxqgeU-3w&feature=youtu.be
At a meeting of the California Division of Workers Compensation which is
under Christine Baker who runs the Division of Industrial Relations injured
workers charged that the system was corrupt and there was rampant
workers comp fraud by the insurance industry and employers. They also
charged the officials of the DWC with being in collusion with the criminals
in the insurance industry by allowing them to illegally deny medical care
and allowing the Maximus company to violate the rules.
DWC Acting Administrative Director Destie Overpeck refused to answer
questions about what her agency is doing about the investigation and
prosecution of workers comp fraud. Dr. Rupali Das who is the executive
medical director of the Division of Workers Compensation told the audience
that doctors should be advocates for injured workers without getting paid
for their work.
Injured Workers National Network http://www.iwnn.org
Production of Labor Video Project http://www.laborvideo.org

Legislation cut California’s workers’ compensation medical costs "Reforms" Harms Injured Workers Who Opposed Deal Between Insurance Industry, Bosses and CA AFL-CIO Pulaski and Angie Wei
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article45113049.html
NOVEMBER 16, 2015
Legislation cut California’s workers’ compensation medical costs

2012 legislation reduced costs, raised cash benefits

Construction workers finish off the roof on the northwest corner of the Capitol Yards Apartments in West Sacramento on Feb. 24, 2014. Construction is one of the state’s most injury-prone jobs. Jose Luis Villegas jvillegas [at] sacbee.com
BY DAN WALTERS
dwalters [at] sacbee.com
Three years ago, Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature enacted a major overhaul of the system that compensates workers for job-related injuries and illnesses.

Senate Bill 863, backed by employers and labor unions, affected many specific aspects of the system but was aimed largely at reducing medical costs and redirecting savings into cash benefit increases for disabled workers.

The measure sought to change the long-standing practice in workers’ compensation cases of charging unregulated medical fees for care by tying fees to other publicly financed health care programs.

The medical care portions of the bill appear to be having the desired effect, a new study by the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau concludes.

As implemented, the legislation has reduced overall payments to medical providers, the WCIRB found, and “as expected…shifted the total share of medical payments from specialists to primary care providers,” its layman’s language interpretation says.

One cost-containment provision, limiting medical fees to 120 percent of those allowable under Medicare, reduced payments affected by the fee schedule from $496.9 million in the first six months of 2013 to $452.2 million in the first half of 2014. However, the report notes an “upsurge in utilization” that has been pushing medical costs upward a bit this year.

The 2012 bill continued a long-standing practice of making a major overhaul in the multi-billion-dollar workers’ compensation system roughly once a decade when enough of its financial stakeholders can agree, often imposing the burdens of change on other stakeholders.

The measure was formally opposed by lawyers representing injured workers and informally by providers of medical and rehabilitation services.

Dan Walters: 916-321-1195, dwalters [at] sacbee.com, @WaltersBee

CA Workers' compensation deal faces fierce opposition-CA AFL-CIO Angie Wei Working With Bosses To Screw Injured Workers Again
Workers' compensation deal faces fierce opposition
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-comp-deal-faces-opposition-20120814,0,7244613.story



•

<600.jpeg>
Lawyers that represent injured workers are the most vocal opponents of a proposed $1-billion-plus overhaul of the California workers' compensation program. Above, workers' comp Judge Pamela Foust meets with a lawyer for an injured worker at Santa Monica court as other lawyers wait their turn, left. (Bob Chamberlain / Los Angeles Times /March 2, 2012)
By Marc Lifsher
August 14, 2012, 4:05 p.m.
SACRAMENTO -- A proposed overhaul of California's workers' compensation insurance is running into heavy resistance even before it's been formally introduced in the waning weeks of the legislative session.

A special hearing of the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee scheduled for Wednesday at the state Capitol was postponed and no new date has been set.

As of Tuesday, the most vocal opposition to the $1-billion-plus deal is coming from lawyers that represent injured workers in California's specialized workers' compensation courts.

The lobbying group known as the California Applicants' Attorneys Assn. has issued an "urgent action alert" to its members, clients and allies "to contact your state senator or Assembly member now!"

The alert charges that the proposal, which has been worked out between labor unions and large employers, including Safeway Inc. and Walt Disney Co., is anti-worker.

"The measure gives insurance companies total control not only of medical care, but of all aspects of an injured workers' medical-legal case," the alert states.

A spokesman for Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) said that his office phone had been ringing continuously with complaining calls. Lieu, the chairman of the Senate committee whose meeting was postponed, is expected to carry the workers' compensation overhaul in his bill, SB 863.

Proponents of the overhaul counter that they carefully crafted legislation that would increase benefits paid to permanently disabled victims of on-the-job accidents by $720 million. Money for the boost would come from streamlining the system and by eliminating some payments made to doctors, lawyers, claims administrators and other service providers in the $11 billion-a-year workers' compensation system.

While the lawyers have aggressively attacked the proposed overhaul, other workers' compensation players are being more cautious about commenting before they've digested the 279-page bill.

"A lot of us are looking internally to see what we make of this," said Mark Webb, a vice president of Pacific Compensation Insurance Co. of Thousand Oaks.

The fierce reaction from the applicants' attorneys, he said, "has thrown everybody for a loop."

Nevertheless, Webb stressed that the deal is far from dead, and "proponents continue to meet in the Capitol with members to explain the value of their plan."



Deal on California workers' compensation overhaul appears likely-CA AFL-CIO Angie Wei Working To Screw CA Injured Workers
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-workers-comp-overhaul-20120809,0,2165078.story

Unions and large employers are close to a deal to cut costs and hike benefits in the workers' compensation system. The Legislature could get the plan next week.


By Marc Lifsher, Los Angeles Times
August 9, 2012
SACRAMENTO — Hopes for a last-minute agreement to overhaul the state's $11-billion workers' compensation system are growing as the end of the 2012 legislative session approaches.

A small group of labor unions and large employers has been meeting quietly since April to craft legislation that would cut administrative, legal and medical costs enough to fund a significant boost in benefits paid to workers who suffer permanent disabilities from job-related injuries or illnesses. And an agreement seems imminent.

"We are very hopeful that we will be able to deliver to the Legislature a significant bill that both restores some modicum of justice to the injured worker and brings efficiency and less friction to the system," said Angie Wei, a key negotiator with the California Labor Federation of the AFL-CIO.

And in a prediction likely to please business interests, the labor leader said, "We think we can deliver real savings to the employers who pay the bills."

Senate Labor Committee Chairman Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), whose panel handles workers' compensation bills, is optimistic that something substantial can be achieved.

"I'm glad both sides are working together to hammer out an agreement that is fair for everyone," he said. "Preventing cost increases to employers and helping injured workers are vital goals."

The goal of the talks, which have been blessed by the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown, is to find a way to increase permanent disability benefits without raising insurance premiums paid by tens of thousands of small and large businesses and nonprofit organizations across the state.

Those rates have fallen about 60% since lawmakers and then Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2004 approved a landmark revision of California's workers' compensation laws. Sacramento lobbyists and state officials say they expect to see detailed provisions of the new overhaul when it's formally introduced in the Legislature early next week.

Quick action is considered essential because the annual legislative session adjourns Aug. 31, and lawmakers say they are ready to check it out.

The package is expected to be a priority partly because this is an election year, and the unusual alliance of big businesses and unions gives both groups, which hand out millions of dollars in campaign contributions, plenty of political clout.

The plan is being presented Thursday at a closed-door meeting called by the California Chamber of Commerce. Attending will be the employer representatives who negotiated the deal

Although the details are not public, representatives of employers have said they're open to providing more financial assistance to injured workers after eight years of support for a law that reduced their benefits.

Permanent disability benefits fell by more than half to an average of $12,000 per injured worker last year from $25,000 in 2004, according to a UC Berkeley Survey Research Center study.

Money to pay for the increase may be found by removing some of the frictions and inefficiencies from the system, said Martin Morgenstern, Brown's secretary of labor and workforce development, in an interview earlier this year. The administration is not commenting on the recent negotiations.

A 2009 analysis estimated potential savings of $793 million to $1.5 billion. Much of the funding could come from simplifying criteria for calculating benefits for various types of injuries.

Other savings, it suggested, could be achieved through changes in the fees paid to doctors and hospitals for outpatient surgeries and by cutting into a backlog of more than a half a million outstanding medical bills that have been piling up in the Los Angeles regional workers' compensation courts.

Such savings would give employers a sound basis for endorsing a hike in benefits to injured workers, said Jerry Azevedo, a spokesman for the Workers' Compensation Action Network, a coalition of businesses, nonprofit organizations and insurance companies.

"Employers would like to see a package that has verified cost savings that would be greater than the price tag" of any benefit increases, he said.

marc.lifsher [at] latimes.com
CA AFL-CIO Officials Conned By Gov Schwarzenegger "Labor movement neutral on the Schwarzenegger reforms"

http://www.nasi.org/events/archive

Health and Income Security for Injured Workers:

Key Policy Issues



Thursday, October 12, 2006 - Friday, October 13, 2006



This policy symposium convened in the Ballroom of the National Press

Club, 529 14th Street, NW, Washington, DC.




Commentary

Angie Wei, Legislative Director, California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO



ANGIE WEI: Good morning. I’ve always wanted to say this. I want to thank the

academy for having me this morning. (Laughter.) I also want to acknowledge, off the

top, Christine Baker, the executive officer for the Commission on Health and Safety and

Worker’s Comp. Christine, in my opinion, is one of the hardest working and most

effective public servants in California, and I want to thank you for having me here. I

have to acknowledge, of course, Tom Rankin, a past president for the state labor

federation in California, who was the font of knowledge in representing workers and

injured workers in our state.



One of the things that Tom Rankin taught me as I started trying to pick up the

expertise he had in worker’s comp is that we have to be data-driven; too often anecdotes

drive our public policy. And anecdotes are very powerful, but what really should drive

our decisions and the positions that the state labor federation takes on legislation and

policies are the data, and that’s why I feel especially grateful to be here at the academy

and sit on the commission, because the data that you provide and the research that you do

really help illuminate the policy discussions in which we’re engaged.



I want to start by saying in California, we at the State Labor Federation really

believe in worker’s comp; maybe not in a lot of other issues. But in worker’s comp, the

employees and the employers do share the same goals for worker’s comp outcomes. We

think that these two parties are the two principals in a worker’s comp system. Everybody

else is a vendor. It doesn’t mean that they’re bad people. But let’s face it; they have a

financial interest in the system. So we want to do as much as we can to work with the

employer community because we do think that we have shared goals.



Bill and I worked hard this year to regulate and impose a fair fee schedule on

doctors dispensing prescription drugs, and after a good two years of hard work – why we

had to work so hard on such a clear issue is still kind of beyond me – we are going to get

to a point where we will have a fair fee schedule for doctor-dispensed prescription drugs.

Bill, I want to acknowledge also, was also critical on behalf of some employers to help us

maintain our own right for some of us in California to see our own doctors under the pre-

designation system. And while that right was supposed to sunset in April of ’07, we did

get Governor Schwarzenegger to assign a bill to extend that right to December of ’09.

And there are parts of the employer community who I think are reasonable who helped us

make that happen. And I want to acknowledge and thank him for that. Bill and I will

likely disagree from here on out on permanent disability. (Laughter.)



Two other final opening comments from me: we live in a term limited situation in

California and probably in a lot of your different legislatures, and on term limits, there is

a lot of churn, both at the legislator level as well as the staff level. We’ve lost

tremendous expertise in social insurance programs and in worker’s compensation. And

these new legislators come to town, they hear a lot about worker’s comp and they all

want to bang a home run with big changes in comp, based on anecdotes. And that’s why

55

we need the data to make rational and reasonable decisions, because we’ve lost so much

expertise in our state house, I believe, in social insurance programs.



For the state labor federation, we like to consider ourselves as leaders in helping

contain costs in worker’s compensation. I talked about vendors in the system. We have

all kinds of vendors who try and introduce bills to increase the reimbursement rates and

the fee schedules. You know, they provide durable medical equipment, specialty doctors,

pharmacists. You name them; we’ve got them – probably like you do in every other

state. And we try to be very consistent on the positions that we take on legislation that is

introduced by some of these stakeholders. It has to be data-driven. If you want change in

the system, if you want to justify a fee increase or change in your reimbursement rates,

show us the data for why it’s needed and then we’ll make an informed decision.



I think that there are certain employer trade associations that have big tents, and

represent a variety of interests, not just pure employer “I-pay-the-premium” interests.

They represent the insurers. They represent the durable medical equipment providers.

They represent the doctors. And so, in my opinion, some of these trade associations, like

the chamber of commerce, don’t take the right positions on these issues that drive up

costs. We want to stand in the way of cost drivers in the system because we want the

system to be fair and for employers to pay fair premiums, but we also know that as costs

go up, in the end it comes off our backs. As costs go up, the first place people often look

is at injured workers’ benefits and how to slash those benefits to retain costs. So we want

to play an important role to make sure that people are getting paid fairly – people, the

vendors – so that in the end, it tries to save the benefits of the injured workers and we

have to look beyond some of these employer trade associations. We’re lucky to have Bill

who represents an employer, a single employer, as opposed to some of the larger, big

umbrella, big tent, trade associations who may not have the best employer interests at

heart.



With that being said, I want to start talking a little bit about permanent disability.

And I’ll talk about the policy and about the politics. To put the permanent disability new

system that we have adopted in context – Frank started on this – we see in total about 65

percent cuts in total dollars in permanent disability, 5 percent from apportionment that

Frank described earlier; we’ve cut the number of weeks on the low end of the rating

system and that equates about 9 percent of the dollars in the system. We haven’t talked

anything about the zeros, those claims that don’t get rated under the AMA and fall out of

the system altogether. And that’s going to total about 15 percent of the total dollars in the

system. And then we have the actual permanent disability ratings schedule, which as

Frank closed his presentation, it’s about 50 percent cuts in total dollars.



Aggregate those four changes in permanent disability – I’m not a mathematician –

it adds up to something in the 70s for me, but Frank tells me it’s 65 percent cuts in dollars

because of cumulative impacts across the board or something. But if you take all those

factors into place, the total is 65 percent cuts in dollars in permanent disability.



56

The labor movement in California was neutral on the Schwarzenegger reforms

adopted in 2004. We would have never been neutral on a bill that would have taken 65

percent of the dollars out of the system. Governor Schwarzenegger and his negotiators

told us that they did not mean to cut benefits to the severely injured workers, to the

permanently disabled workers. And Schwarzenegger made those promises, and that’s

why we and Tom Rankin insisted that we write into the labor code statute, the reference

of the RAND study; if we base things on real, empirical data and wage loss data, we

would have a fair system. We recognize some benefits would go up and some benefits

would go down based on the type of injury. But we never anticipated a 65 percent cut in

the dollars in the system. And when the administration was putting together the new

rating system, they told us, oh, this will not end up in 50 percent cuts that you guys are

estimating. And I was taught to never say, I told you so; but on this one, we told them so.

We told them it would be 50 percent cuts, and actually we were right.



As we look at permanent disability, a couple of things that I was reminded

listening to Frank and Mr. Hunt. For us, return to work is the best outcome for injured

workers. That’s the way that we can get maximum wage replacement. We don’t support

keeping injured workers off the job. If they can and are ready and able to go back to

work, we think that is the best outcome for them.



Secondly, as Frank outlined in his presentation, and I’m remiss that I didn’t bring

a copy of it with me, the labor code was amended to take into account the RAND study.

We went to the AMA guys and we had adjustments – age, occupation, and this notion of

the future earnings capacity, the FEC factor. And that future earnings capacity was

supposed to be based on the empirical data of the RAND study and to do the crosswalk to

wage loss. The regulation that was adopted by this Schwarzenegger administration never

did that crosswalk, never tied it to the empirical wage loss data, and that’s why we see the

50 percent cuts in the rating schedule.



Let me say this: at the end of the legislative session, the president of our state

senate, Don Perata, moved a piece of legislation that would have increased the number of

weeks of benefits for permanently disabled injured workers. It was a bill that we

supported even though it might not have been, in our opinion, the best approach to restore

fairness in the permanent disability schedule. We saw it as increasing the number of

weeks for extremely low benefits. The better solution we would have liked was to

actually adjust the future earnings capacity. But we supported it. Partially why I think

our legislative leadership took that approach is because Stanley Zax of Zenith Insurance

Company supported this piece of legislation. He thought that if we restored and

increased the number of weeks for injured workers that the system could absorb that

amount, and maybe decreases in the employer premiums may have slowed down by less

than 5 percent. So we actually had an insurer support this legislation with respect to the

AMA guide with these adjustors for age, occupation, and the future earnings capacity,

because we agreed with the notion that we wanted a more consistent and more

predictable permanent disabilities system.



57

But with slashes in benefits this deep, I think we’re moving away from that stated

goal. We’re not going to get consistency and predictability because I think some of the

permanent disability raters themselves think that these cuts are too deep, and may be

trying to find ways to adjust them as much as they can. The lawyers who represent the

injured workers think that these cuts are too deep and are going to find every

methodological way to try and get the ratings increased. Some of the judges in the comp

system are going to think that these cuts are too deep and find ways to adjust upwards as

well. So while we try to get to the goal of consistency and predictability, having such

deep cuts in the system I think actually works against that goal.



I see the time clock ticking so let me just close in terms of the politics of the

situation. You know, Governor Schwarzenegger kind of pushed the legislature and all

the different stakeholders to a position of having to face this reform by kind of holding up

the threat of a ballot initiative over our heads. And he used that way to get to this deal.

And, I would argue that this was his only legislative success in the first two years of his

administration. Everything else failed; we killed everything else or it never got off the

ground. And so, to be able to tweak the permanent disability system meant that they

would have to admit that they made a mistake, and that’s a pretty uphill battle to push to

get the administration to admit that they made a mistake when he’s up for reelection.

And for us, it became his first promise broken. He promised not to cut benefits for

severely injured workers and clearly that has been broken. So Governor Schwarzenegger

is out on the campaign trail now touting his worker’s comp reforms in every commercial

and every piece of mail that they have. We, of course, are touting the 50 percent cuts in

permanent disability benefits as another reason why we should not send this guy back.

And in the end, injured workers are suffering.



Now, I understand that the administration’s division of worker’s comp is

undertaking some studies to try and tie wage loss to return to work rates to look at

whether or not in their opinion the permanent disability system needs to be tweaked. And

for us, the CHSWC commission in California has come up with a methodology that takes

baby steps to bring some justice back into the system and some fairness back into it. The

policy question in our minds is should we let injured workers suffer these deep cuts for as

long as it takes to do these studies or should we make minor adjustments on a regular

basis so that we can bring a little bit more relief to them? And we think that it’s

important to make the investment now and make these changes rather than wait for

however long it’s going to take to get these empirical studies done. I understand the

RAND study based on ten years of data. We don’t have time to wait. We can’t wait ten

years to try and restore some of these benefits. So we’ll come back next year, regardless

of who is in the governor’s office and try and do both regulatory and legislative work to

restore these benefits. Again, I thank the academy.


CA Rand Study Says Workers Comp Utilization Review Boards and Qualified Medical Examiner System Busted-CA Labor Fed Leader Says Get "more QME's"

At a meeting of the California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers Compensation CHSWC on August 19, 2010, Barbara Wynn of the Rand Corporation in a study ordered by the commission reported
that company doctors were gaming the Utilization Review Boards UR to rule against workers in their workers compensation cases and that the state had to "unclog the QME system".
The insurance industry with the support of Governor Schwarzenegger and nearly the unanimous support of the Democrats and Republicans passed SB 899 to supposedly reform the workers compensation
system. The "reform" they pushed has resulted in a 50% cut in permanent disability payments to tens of thousands of injured workers, the elimination of vocational training for new jobs and also an obstacle
course to prevent seriously workers from getting treated quickly and properly. This failure to treat seriously injured workers quickly leads to their health deterioration. The corporate controlled Department of Workers Compensation set up a "Utilization Review Boards" and require that workers who need prompt surgeries have to go to "Qualified Medical Examiners" when employers or insurance companies challenge the decisions of their own doctors. This has resulted in workers spending years waiting to get their injuries treated and has benefited the insurance industry and drug companies when workers are forced to take medication instead of being treated for their injuries.

Workers have testified that they have spent years waiting to get their surgeries approved and some have even committed suicide. A representative of the California Coalition For Workers Memorial Day attacked
the insurance industry at the meeting for torturing workers who need to get their injuries taken care of quickly before they become permanently disabled as a result of their injuries.
At the same hearing, the CHSWC chair Angie Wei who is also a legislative director of the California AFL-CIO Labor Federation said the solution to the collapse and gaming of the UR and QME's by employers and the insurance industry
was to "get more QME's". Wei was also partly responsible for the California AFL-CIO taking a "neutral" position on the deregulation of workers compensation in California through SB 899.
A representative of the California Coalition for Workers Memorial Day also raised a challenge to the commission about the elimination of all professional medical staff by the Governor and
Director of CA OSHA Len Welsh. Welsh it was also reported had harassed and terrorized OSHA inspectors and staff not to enforce the regulations that is part of their job.
http://www.workersmemorialday.org/documents/indictmentCa-Osha.htm
Unfortunately Angie Wei's boss California AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer Art Pulaski has refused to make any public statement or political education campaign against the destruction of CA-OSHA including attacks on the staff and the elimination of professional medical personnel despite requests from health and safety advocates. This attack on CA-OSHA in fact did not start with the Schwarzenegger administration but also during previous Democratic governors including Gray Davis. The proposed layoff of the last doctor of Ca-OSHA in fact took place while Gray Davis was governor and was stopped by a health and safety activists going public about this attack.

Instead of raising this issue of the attack on CA-OSHA on the CHSWC board and backing up the speaker from the CCWMD, Board Chair and CA AFL-CIO Legislative Director Angie Wei was silent about this serious health and safety danger
because of the lack of any medical staff for California's 17 million workers. The CA AFL-CIO and the organization Worksafe in the past have also supported voluntary compliance programs that allow companies such as IBM and
others to avoid providing documentation of illnesses and other problems to CA-OSHA officers. It has also meant the lack of inspections to enforce CA-OSHA regulations.
Dr. Jack Thrasher Ph.D. also testified at the commission that as a result of the insertion of ACOEM rules into California Workers Compensation regulations by the insurance industry, workers are being
contaminated by mold and are not being covered by workers compensation. He pointed to the case of injured Poway Toyota workers who were sickened by the mold at the auto dealership and then faced
owners and a manager who have sought to force workers to go to state disability and be put in the Family Leave program because they were avoiding their liability.
There are approximately five employees of Toyota of Poway who have pending workers’ compensation claims and injured worker Tim Hack has filed OSHA complaints that were ignored by the agency.
http://moldtruth.wordpress.com/
Dr. Thrasher Ph.D gave a report on serious harmful affects of mold on the health of workers and the public including the brain. The Commission was speechless since this issue has been covered up by the insurance industry
and employers who want to avoid liability for injuries and sickness caused by mold. He introduced several new documents that have been written and said that the Commission needed to investigate the role of the
insurance industry in pushing the ACOEM regulations.
http://www.drthrasher.org/
Angie Wei also said that some workers were waiting to see a CA-OSHA inspector when they had serious health and safety violations and there were no inspectors available. She failed to point out that labor unions could
have protests and public action to demand health and safety for workers instead of waiting and waiting for CA-OSHA to enforce safety regulations.

A speaker from CCWMD also pointed out that in the case of Agraquest biotech worker David Bell, CA-OSHA did not have the capability to investigate contamination in the biotech industry due to genetically engineered
products that are new or unknown as to their affects on workers and the public. It was also pointed out that not having professional medical personnel in the CA-OSHA agency meant that these biotech illnesses and violations could not be even understood and dealt with. While workers are under deadly threat in California the profits of the insurance industry have skyrocketed. Billions of dollars are going into the pockets of billionaires like Warren Buffet and other companies like Zenith, Citi Group, Zurich, Gallagher & Bassett , Liberty Mutual and other companies.
The speaker from the CCWMD also said that the Commission should begin a study of the financial conflicts of interests that Workers Comp Judges and the Workers Compensation Appeal Board have with insurance companies and employers both insured and self-insured. It was pointed out that the Workers Compensation Appeals Judge Suzanne F. Dugan had ruled against an appeal by Agraquest injured biotech worker David Bell on his workers compensation case and her husband had a financial relationship with Agraquest. Her husband Michael T. Dugan had sponsored an Agraquest event. This was not disclosed by the judge who refused to recuse herself from the case. Complaints are being prepared against the judge for malfeasance and covering up workers compensation fraud. The CCWMD speaker declared that there were systemic conflicts of interest and corruption of the entire workers compensation system and it has been subverted by the insurance industry and employers to limit their liabilities.
http://www.biotechawareness.com

The California Coalition For Workers Memorial Day CCWMD is for the elimination of the insurance industry in healthcare and for all premiums to go directly to providers with a single payer system. This would save billions of dollars and end the need for injured workers to negotiate with insurance companies about their treatment and care as part of any settlement on their workers comp injuries. Since injured workers lawyers only get paid when they make a settlement this means that injured workers are pressurized to agree to small settlements that do not provide for their medical care over the long term. It was also pointed out at the hearing that there is a massive costs shifting going on as injured workers healthcare and other costs are shifted to the State, local agencies and SSI who are picking up the costs of their injuries. This massive cover-up and costshifting scheme is growing yet the CA-AFL-CIO and Angie Wei refuse to make this issue as well.


California Coalition For Workers Memorial Day
http://www.workersmemorialday.org

Labor Report Urges Study Of A Federal Role In State Workers' Comp Laws "Working people are at great risk of falling into poverty,"
http://www.wbur.org/npr/496596865/labor-report-urges-study-of-a-federal-role-in-state-workers-comp-laws?utm_source=cc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nwsltr-16-10-05
October 05, 2016
By Howard Berkes and Michael Grabell, ProPublicaShare
A "race to the bottom" in state workers' compensation laws has the Labor Department calling for "exploration" of federal oversight and federal minimum benefits.

"Working people are at great risk of falling into poverty," the agency says in a new report on changes in state workers' comp laws. Those changes have resulted in "the failure of state workers' compensation systems to provide [injured workers] with adequate benefits."

In the last decade, the report notes, states across the country have enacted new laws, policies and procedures "which have limited benefits, reduced the likelihood of successful application for workers' compensation benefits, and/or discouraged injured workers from applying for benefits."

The report was prompted by a letter last fall from 10 prominent Democratic lawmakers, who urged Labor Department action to protect injured workers in the wake of a ProPublica/NPR series on changes in workers' comp laws in 33 states.

The ProPublica/NPR stories featured injured workers who lost their homes, were denied surgeries or were even denied prosthetic devices recommended by their doctors.

"The current situation warrants a significant change in approach in order to address the inadequacies of the system," the report says.

That's where federal intervention comes in. The Labor Department calls for "exploration" of "the establishment of standards that would trigger increased federal oversight if workers' compensation programs fail to meet those standards."

The agency also suggests a fresh look at reestablishing a 1972 Nixon administration commission that recommended minimum benefits and urged Congress to act if states failed to comply.

"In this critical area of the social safety net, the federal government has basically abdicated any responsibility," says Labor Secretary Thomas Perez.

Without minimum federal standards for workers' comp benefits, Perez adds, the current system "is really putting workers who are hurt on the job on a pathway to poverty."

Prior to the report's release, employers, insurance companies and others involved in workers' comp programs expressed alarm at the possibility of federal intervention.

"There has never been federal 'oversight of state workers' compensation programs'," says a statement posted on the website of a group called Strategic Services on Unemployment and Workers' Compensation, which says it represents the workers' comp interests of the business community.

"Federal requirements imposed on a national basis would be inconsistent with the state workers' compensation system, which has been in place for more than 100 years without federal oversight," the group wrote.

Federal minimum benefits could ensure that injured workers across the country would not receive lesser benefits for often shorter periods of time simply because they lived in a state where lawmakers dramatically cut workers' comp costs for employers.

"This is a system with no federal minimum standards and absolutely no federal oversight," says Deborah Berkowitz, a senior fellow at the National Employment Law Project. "Clearly, more federal oversight is necessary to assure that that this system works for those most in need of assistance."

No direct administrative or legislative action is proposed in the report, but Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, says he's "drafting legislation to address many of the troubling findings laid out in this report and will be working with my colleagues to advance it in the next Congress."

Brown echoes Perez, saying injuries on the job shouldn't force workers into poverty.

"But without a basic standard for workers compensation programs, that's exactly what's happening in too many states across the country," Brown adds.

Another incentive for federal involvement, the report notes, is a shift of billions of dollars in workplace injury costs to taxpayers when state workers' comp benefits fall short and workers are forced to turn to Medicare and Social Security for treatment and lost wages.

The report lays the groundwork for federal intervention by providing an extensive section detailing the government's role in promoting national benefits standards in both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back to 1939.

But many in the workers' comp world consider workplace injury policy and regulation a states' right and any prospect of a controlling federal role will likely face stiff resistance.