Posted by pete on March 15, 1999 at 11:36:20:
In Reply to: Re: Thanks, but no thanks. posted by Tom Mattis on March 12, 1999 at 18:51:32:
WCD management has attempted to pacify MLAC labor members by saying there will be an audit of insurer closures. WCD audits are a joke. 20% of all Notices of Closure are reviewed for timeliness of time loss, payment of time loss at the correct amount and if PPD was paid correctly for the award granted. Management says they will put an additional two auditors in the audit unit to review permanent partial disability. Does that mean they will only continue to REVIEW 20% of all notices. Does that mean workers in Oregon will continue to bend over and take their medicine. JUST BECAUSE ONLY 17% of all closures are appealed to the Appellate unit in WCD does not mean the other 83% of the closures were done accurately. EVALUATION provides a FAIR, IMPARTIAL RATING OF CLOSURES. ONLY WITH FULL AUDIT OF ALL NOTICES OF CLOSURE PRIOR TO DISBANDING EVALUATION SHOULD 220 PASS.
I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT WCD MANAGEMENT TRULY BELIEVES THAT WORKERS WILL GET A FAIR IMPARTIAL RATING OF IMPAIRMENT BY THE INSURERS WHEN THE BOTTOM LINE OF BUSINESS IS PROFIT. WHAT PROFIT IS THERE IN PAYING WORKERS FAIRLY FOR INJURIES RECEIVED WORKING FOR OREGON EMPLOYERS.
MANY WORKERS FEEL THREATENED EVEN DECLARING THEY HAVE A WORK INJURY> THEY ARE GRATEFUL FOR JUST GETTING THEIR BILLS PAID (if not starved out first) and GETTING THEIR JOBS BACK. DO YOU BLAME THEM FOR NOT APPEALING THEIR CLOSURES>
SB 220 is just another shaft by the system. MLAC's labor members have been conned. AND injured workers will be paying for this con if this bill is allowed to go through without full disclosure of all notices of closure by a 2-year audit by the evaluation unit prior to disbanding this professional group.
Post a Followup