| Author | Subject: Workers Comp:The real story. |
| Webmaster | Posted At 14:40:10 05/28/2000
This is a re-post from our first message board. I urge all interested to copy and paste this and send it to Dateline@nbc.com Worker's Compensation Fraud: The Real Story Prepared by the Labor Research Association, Greg Tarpinian, executive director Executive Summary Escalating workers' compensation insurance premiums in the late 1980s and early 1990s set off a series of unsubstantiated charges about widespread claimant fraud as a major cost driver in the workers' compensation system. A number of states passed anti-fraud legislation and began to pursue fraud cases and to collect information about fraud on a serious basis. These efforts have uncovered no evidence to support the charges of widespread claimant fraud and, in fact, have revealed that employer fraud is a far larger drain on the system. The misplaced focus on claimant fraud has created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation for injured workers with legitimate claims. It has also distracted policymakers, law enforcement officials and the public from the real fraud problem in workers' compensation: employer fraud. Dramatic increases in workers' compensation premiums throughout the late 1980's and early 1990's fueled unsubstantiated charges that costs were high in part because workers abused the system, fraudulently collecting benefits for faked injuries or remaining on benefits far longer than their recovery required. The American Insurance Association estimated fraud losses at 10% of the cost of claims paid, or about $3 billion. The National Insurance Crime Bureau doubled the ALA's estimate to $6 billion, even though it was involved in only 99 fraud prosecutions in 1994 and 134 in 1995 nationwide. The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud adopted the AIA's estimate. One insurance company president put the cost of workers' compensation fraud at $30 billion a year. These huge numbers grabbed the attention of the public and policyholders. The presumption in the press and in the state houses was that fraud was rampant and that most workers' compensation fraud was claimant fraud. Since that time, more than half of the states have passed legislation on workers' compensation fraud, with most of the laws directed primarily at claimants. Thirty-three states currently have active workers' compensation insurance fraud units, many of them geared to fighting claimant fraud. In every state, some claimant fraud has been discovered; publicity about these cases has created a deterrent for workers who might contemplate fraudulent claims. But it has also created an atmosphere that Frederick Hill, California analyst for Firemark Research of New Jersey, describes as the ``unwarranted and anecdotal vilification of the work force.'' In its extensive investigation of workers' compensation fraud, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat concluded that, ``The perception that workers are cashing in by faking or exaggerating injuries has created a climate of mistrust in which every person who is injured and files a claim can become the subject of suspicion by insurance adjusters, doctors and industry lawyers.'' Perhaps most importantly, the fixation on claimant fraud has distracted policymakers, enforcement agencies, and the public from growing evidence of the real problem: millions of dollars in employer and provider fraud. Fixation on Claimant Fraud Few experts believe that claimant fraud is a major cost driver in workers' compensation. But some estimates, including those adopted by California Governor Pete Wilson, suggest that fraud accounted for 25% of all employers' workers' compensation costs and 10% of the claims. In California, a wave of legislation in the late 1980s and early 1990s was fueled by allegations from employers that workers' compensation costs were too high and that fraud was rampant in the system. But between 1979 and 1991, insurance carriers in California reported only 532 cases of alleged fraud. According to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, ``Some insurance companies saw fraud as a way to explain why premiums were soaring, and politicians and the media jumped on the bandwagon.'' The Press Democrat found that, ``While some insurance companies claim one out of three workers lie about their injuries, or 33%, the actual number of fraud cases sent to prosecutors is less than 1 out of 100, or less than 1%. In its estimates of fraud within its own state, Kentucky reversed California's estimate of fraud accounting for 10% of claims and 25% of costs, saying that ``as much as 25% of all workers' compensation claims involve some element of fraud, accounting for 10% of paid premium.'' Kentucky then calculated its own fraud losses as $60 million a year. It noted, however, that ``while the extent of the fraud cannot be quantified, there is no doubt that workers' compensation fraud is in the public eye. Reports of fraud . . . are proliferated by the media.'' High workers' compensation costs led to more anti-fraud efforts. The Arkansas legislature created the Workers' Compensation Fraud Investigation Unit in 1993, in response to then-escalating workers' compensation costs. In its first year of operation, the new Fraud Unit opened 116 investigations, leading to 10 claimant fraud prosecutions and five employer fraud prosecutions, and quickly discovered that the employer cases accounted for a large portion of the dollar value involved. New York's massive 1996 workers' compensation legislation, including its fraud provisions, resulted a directly from employer claims that workers' compensation costs were out of control. New York State Controller H. Carl McCall announced flatly in October of 1997, ``Fraud is a factor in New York's compensation costs.'' A statement from his office made the link between rising costs and the presumption of widespread fraud, stating [[Page E2058]] that, ``In response to the high cost of workers' compensation, reforms aimed at fraud detection and prosecution were enacted in 1996.'' But according to the New York State Insurance Department's annual report on insurance fraud, workers' compensation fraud represented only 3% of all the fraud reports in the state in 1996, the year that the legislation was passed. Of the more than $6 million in insurance fraud documented in the New York report, workers' compensation claimant cases accounted for less than 2%. The report cited cases of pharmacists, physicians, and medical clinics making a total of almost $3 million in fraudulent claims. Three cases of premium embezzlement totaled over half a million dollars. The report cited only five cases of claimant fraud totaling $107,300. Like other states that are pursuing workers' compensation fraud, New York is quickly discovering that the real drain on the system stems from employer and provider fraud. |
| C. Strouse |
Re: Workers Comp:The real story. (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 12:25:43 05/29/2000 Webmaster, here is another idea also that was submitted on another injured worker board, the only bad thing is you have to watch the show to do it but if we can hit the network where it hurts with complaints, I think it is a brilliant idea. Thanks pipesmoker for your input.Here is a copy of the letter I am sending to the sponsors of this show. I urge each and everyone of you to write them. NBC , like our politicians only have one thing in mind; how far they can line their pockets. On Monday 5/30/00, DATELINE - NBC ,chose to air a repeat story on WC fraud, which paints, not only a very negative picture of injured workers but is blatantly untrue. The original airing of this show has been the cause of the recent changes in the WC laws from state to state that has devastated the injured workers and their families. Sadly ( Company name here) chose to sponsor this irresponsible reporting. I wish to inform you I will no longer be purchasing your products. I am sending a copy of this letter to all of the injured workers websites so they may know the type of programming your company supports. I will also urge them to boycott your products as well. Respectfully, (your name and addy here) C. Strouse |
| Quack Slayer |
Workers Comp: The real QUACKS! (Currently 3 replies)
Posted At 17:06:19 12/18/2000 "Hello, I have just started a site dedicated to stamping out medical quackery. Members can post questions and I will tell them if their information or doctor is quacking. I use the massive MedLine database and access to hundreds of medical experts at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School for the answers when my decade of medical experience won't suffice. Spread the word to all potential "quack victims" One of the major workers compensation frauds is comitted by con attorneys who are hiring for fees IMEs who stage medical reports for fees with litigation motivated diagnosis. So who are those IMEs? Parthenia Medical Group! of litigators: Elliot S. Kaye, Executive Director PARTHENIA MEDICAL GROUP, INC. 8660 Woodley Avenue, North Hills, CA 91343 1. Ajit Singh Arora who impersonates Associate Professor at UCLA while providing "voluntary: services and unlawfully using title of Associate Professor of UCLA. We've done a lot of research on Dr. Arora up here in Alaska, and on his activities in Hawaii as well. For instance, Dr. Arora claims he's a "Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine, U.C.L.A. School of Medicine." This is a bogus title. Dr. Arora has never been paid a dime by U.C.L.A., this title is gifted to him for volunteering a total of 24 hours a year at a U.C.L.A. affiliated VA hospital. We have much more on Dr. Arora, and are willing to share it with others who have been hurt by his fraudulent "medical" reports." c/o PARTHENIA MEDICAL GROUP, INC. 8660 Woodley Avenue, North Hills, CA 91343 2. Ronald Gots a well known con subject to Dateline NBC "Paper Chase" see: http://www.msnbc.com/news/437401.asp?cp1=1#BODY RONALD GOTS alleged M.D., is sponsored by powerful lobists of anti MCS organizations. He is an advocate for fees for the Insurance Industry and attorneys. Corporate funded industry front organization the bogus ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITIES REAEARCH INSTITUTE (ESRI) seeks to pass itself off as an independent entity. A trial judge rejected defense arguments made in a five-day Daubert hearing and allowed the testimony of a plaintiff's expert in a toxic encephalopathy (TSE) case (Carol Rowe Rhilinger v. Leslie G. Jancics, et al., No. 93-2223, Mass. Super., Norfolk Co.). Defense Expert In a separate ruling, the court said information it had ordered produced by Environmental Sensitivities Research Inc. (ESRI) regarding the proposed testimony of defense witness Dr. Ronald Gots was relevant to the doctor's potential bias as a witness. The court noted ESRI "refused to comply fully with the order because of its fear that information regarding membership and funding would be disclosed" to parties outside the present case. During the Daubert hearing, the court said it would not consider Dr. Gots' affidavits unless compliance with the prior court order regarding information about the doctor's affiliation with ESRI was produced. While he was not precluded from testifying under Daubert, Dr. Gots is presently barred from appearing at the trial until ESRI complies with the court order. Rhilinger is represented by the Law Offices of Robert C. Autieri of North Andover, Mass. Defense counsel include Mark Granger of Morrison, Mahoney & Miller of Boston and Mark Furcolo and Joni Katz Mackler of Burns & Levinson of Boston. Opinion available doc# 15-980130-105 Contact Mealey Publications Inc. at 1-800-MEALEYS: http://toxlaw.com/toxboard/topic1150/11.16.00.14.35.09.html http://personal.riverusers.com/~searcher/help/daubert.html 3. Abba Terr a "professor at Stamford" and well known "anti injury" "expert witness" A vibrant opponent of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome testified in many courts on his bullshit. ABBA TERR is involed now in Dr. Sinaiko case where once more he degrades medical profession. In depositions under oath ABBA TERR stated: "You get me out of my area if you ask me about toxic chemicals. I am an allergist.." Terr admits that that the patients in his workplace study were referred by the employers and insurance companies who paid him for his opinions in their fight against the worker's compensation claims. Judge described in one case how Terr discredited himself for the case. You may obtain Government report how Terr discredited himself from. 4. Stephen Barrett "psychologist" (psychomaniac) who is in the pocket of the industry! Barrett, a de-licensed MD, who also makes dubious claims about being a "retired Psychiatrist," operates a questionable website (www.quackwatch.com) where he holds forth to be an expert on almost any subject having to do with "Alternative Medicine." Barrett claims "Alternative medicine" is "health fraud." Barrett, however, has NO training, and NO experience, in ANY "Alternative Medicine" field. Not only does Barrett misrepresent "Alternative Medicine," but he seems to misrepresent himself, even more. Barrett is NOT a licensed MD, and WAS NEVER a Board Certified Psychiatrist. Barrett is a pompous jerk with not brains. He probably was a patient of some psychiatrist who though he was the Doctor and not the patient. What I talked to him about was his misrepresentation of people with MCS. On his site he claimed it was all in their head and I proved he was not correct. He later came back at me with a pompous snide remark that had no meaning and was totally incorrect. I told the guy he was the Quack not the other people. Any ways their is plenty of Evidence out there that MCS is not in peoples heads. http://www.mercola.com/Domains/ehealthynews.htm http://www.talkinternational.com/HYS092100.htm 5. Eric Comstock, Houston, Texas, Big SOB in Houston! Abnoctious well known CON and Quack! 6. Mohan Nair, of ..... Parthenia group of cons! Hindu SMOOTH CON, could sell own mother bu pound at meat market! Bloody mother F&^%$r! c/o PARTHENIA MEDICAL GROUP, INC. 8660 Woodley Avenue, North Hills, CA 91343 7. John McDonnell, Kaneohe, Hawaii a full blown moronic CON and QUACK! This SOB injured more people than he ever treated! John McDonnell M.D. Ltd. allegedly Allergist and Immunologist. 46-001 Kamehameha Highway, suite 401 Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744 phone (808) 247 6070 8. Edward Morgan, another SOB selling staged medical reports for fees! High class accademic CON! 9. Peter F. Bianchi Jr. a "psychopath" claiming to be psychologist . Mental case! He needs to be put on horse dose of PROZAC! And look who is here: Board of Scientific and Policy Advisors (Quack after Quack!): Elizabeth Whelan, President, Member Board of Directors Frederick Stare, Board of Directors Stephen Barrett, Board of Scientific and Policy Advisors Michael Easley, Board of Scientific and Policy Advisors Ronald Gots, Board of Scientific and Policy Advisors Victor Herbert, Board of Scientific and Policy Advisors Michael Kamrin, Board of Scientific and Policy Advisors Ian Munro, Board of Scientific and Policy Advisors Same bunch of QUACKS! See more at: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/dangerousdoctors Please post your "seat hearts!" with NO FEAR. We shall disbarr those cons! |
| Joseph E. Detchemendy III |
Re: Workers Comp:The real story. (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 11:02:37 02/11/2001 I have seen Arora.... How about Robert M. Martin II Peter Thaler L. Richman Mason Hohl Lawrence Moss All of California, I think Thanks..need the help Joe |
| Tim Bolen |
Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD - Expert Witness (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 14:41:43 03/16/2001 Massachusetts "Quackbuster" Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD hopped on a plane last January, from Boston to Florida, to show up in a West Palm Beach courtroom as a "surprise rebuttal witness" in the Florida Dental Board vs Phillips case. Baratz didn't do well during the deposition, then angrily walked out when he didn't like the questions he was being asked by Phillips' attorney. And then, after the dust settled, the story got even better... Seems Baratz had a MAJOR problem, during the deposition testimony, staying within the bounds of truth. So much so that PERJURY charges may be on the horizon. Baratz LIED about his qualifications on his CV resume BIG TIME. Baratz is one of de-licensed MD Stephen Barrett's (www.quackwatch.com) top lieutenants in the floundering "quackpot menace." Baratz testified (under oath) that he was a Consultant for the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Criminal Investigation (OCI), and as such had insider knowledge of FDA policy and thinking. He sounded impressive and authoritative in his testimony. It's just that it was all a LIE - The FDA never heard of Baratz, and I have a letter from the the FDA Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) to prove what I say. Of course, now the Court has a copy of the FDA letter... Not only did Baratz LIE about his relationship with FDA, but he LIED about almost all of his current employment. In his deposition Baratz made FANTASTIC claims about his qualifications. HERE IS WHAT I FOUND when I checked on his claims: Most significant are Baratz’s FALSE CLAIMS to current employment (on his CV resume): (1) On page #2, under “Practice and Patient Care Experience,” Baratz claims to be an “Assistant Clinical Professor of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine,” I called the Boston University School of Medicine and asked for Baratz. They have no listing for him. I asked for the Personnel office, and was directed to the Director of personnel, George Snowden, who told me that Robert S. Baratz is not an employee of the University, is NOT ON THE STAFF, and to his knowledge, has no relationship with the University. Snowden, a long time employee of the University, had never heard of Baratz, and wished to be provided with any documents, or data, where Baratz claimed an affiliation with the University. (2) On page #5, under “Current Hospital Staff Appointments,” I called all of the three hospitals listed and asked for Baratz: (A) Carney Hospital, after several telephone calls, responded that Baratz was definitely NOT “on Staff” as he claims, but was restricted to a limited relationship called “Provisional Associate,” which, it was explained to me, meant that he could, with permission, bring a patient to the hospital. The hospital did not know of ANY INCIDENT in which Baratz ever brought a patient to the hospital. (B) Martha’s Vineyard Hospital had no listing for him, knew of no way to reach him, and DID NOT have him on their staff directory. They did not know who he was. (C) Jordan Hospital had no listing for him, and their response to me was “I’ve never heard of him.” (3) On page #4, under “Other Professional Experience and Employment,” Baratz claims “Director, IMCSI (Computer Based Medical Device Tracking systems)...” I called two different nationwide telephone directory services and could get no telephone number for a company, or corporation named IMCSI, nor the longer version of it’s name (International Medical Consultation Services Inc.). The Internet had no listing for any such company; no website, nothing. (4) MOST IMPORTANT - On page #4, under “Other Professional Experience and Employment,” Baratz claims “Consultant, United States Government, U. S. Food and Drug A I called the FDA OCI in Washington DC and was referred to the FDA Office of Internal Affairs, where I spoke to Assistant Special Agent in Charge Paul F. Gebicke. Mr. Gebicke requested that I FAX to him, immediately, portions of the documents where Baratz indicated his relationship with the FDA. I faxed to him the entire seven page CV, and relevant pages concerning Baratz's claim to a relationship with FDA, in the Baratz deposition. Mr. Gebicke responded to me by telephone and indicated that his office had investigated Baratz’s claims (as per the documents faxed to them), and that they would respond to my request by letter. They did so, faxing me a letter dated March 2, 2001, signed by Donald L. Briggs, Special Agent In Charge, FDA Office of Internal Affairs. In short, BARATZ's FDA CLAIMS ARE A FRAUD. FDA Brigg’s letter indicates that his office investigated five claims made by Baratz either in his CV, or in his testimony recorded on the deposition, as follows: “Between February 28, 2001 and March 02, 2001, Special Agents of the FDA OIA made the following inquiries that failed to reveal Baratz either has/has had a consultant or contractual relationship with the FDA in general, or specifically with the FDA Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI), the law enforcement branch of the FDA. On 2/28/01, an OIA SA spoke with OCI Assistant Director (AD) Frank Forgione who said no records could be located that support the assertion that Baratz has ever been a ‘consultant’ to OCI.” “On 3/01/01, an OIA SA spoke with Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) representative Glenna Caffrey, who is responsible for screening prospective nominees as SGE to FDA panels on drug matters. No records could be located that support the assertion that Baratz has ever been an SGE panelist, guest panelist, or participant of record in CDER issues.” “On 3/01/01, an OIA SA spoke with Center for Device and Radiological Health (CDRH) representative Kathleen Walker, who is responsible for screening prospective nominees as SGE to FDA panels on device matters. No records could be located that support the assertion that Baratz has ever been an SGE panelist, guest panelist, or participant of record in CDRH issues.” “On 3/01/01, an OIA SA spoke with Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) representative William Freas, who is responsible for screening prospective nominees as SGE to FDA panels on drug matters. No records could be located that support the assertion that Baratz has ever been an SGE panelist, guest panelist, or participant of record in CBER issues.” “The above inquiries were made with respect to assertions that Robert S. Baratz is a medical doctor and DDS (dentist) who alleges a relationship with the FDA as a result of his alleged expertise in the area of general Dentistry, drugs, and devices related to this field.” (5) On page #4, under “Other Professional Experience and Employment,” Baratz claims “Consultant NBC News, New York.” I called NBC News, New York. They never heard of him, and told me he was definitely NOT a consultant to them. (6) On page #4, under “Other Professional Experience and Employment,” Baratz claims “Consultant ABC News, New York.” I called ABC News, New York. They never heard of him, and told me he was definitely NOT a consultant to them. (7) On page #4, under “Other Professional Experience and Employment,” Baratz claims “Consultant, State of California, Office of the Attorney General, and Board of Dental Examiners.” First off, there is no such organization in California called “The Board of Dental Examiners.” The licensing agency for dentists in California is called the “California Dental Board.” I called them, they researched their records carefully, and responded that they had never heard of Baratz, he was not now, nor ever had been, a consultant for the State of California. No other State agency we contacted (listed by Baratz on his CV) could find any record of him as a consultant. (8) On page #1, under “Skills: Business Development, Entrepreneurial Activities, Administration, and Organization” Baratz claims “Founder of two corporations in medical device area. One (Polymedica) is now >$100M on NASDAQ, other (IMCSI) in growth stages.” I called Polymedica and asked for Baratz. They had no office or phone number for him. I told them that Baratz claims to be THE FOUNDER of the company, and they then referred me to the CEO, who called me back, and said that he did know Baratz, but that he had no knowledge of whether Baratz had any financial interest in Polymedica. (9) On page #2, under “Communications,” Baratz claims “National spokesperson for professional organization (American Dental Association) for scientific matters.” Organizations, especially a large one like the American Dental Association (ADA), do not lightly give, or allow, “spokespersons.” I called the American Dental Association main office in Chicago, Illinois, and asked for Baratz, or the office for “spokespersons.” I was routed around the office to several people who would be familiar with anyone who acted as a “spokesperson” for the ADA. No one I talked to at the ADA had ever heard of him, or had any record of him acting as a "spokesperson." I examined the ADA’s website carefully, and could not find Baratz listed anywhere in their data base. I wonder if Bobbie got his witness fees up front?... Tim Bolen JuriMed - Public Relations and Research Group jurimed@yahoo.com |
| Injured with MCS |
Dr. Allems in SF California (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 14:57:01 03/16/2001 Dr. Allems in SF California The reason I am writing this warning is because this guy is being prepped to be Gots replacement. He Started out here in San Francisco and UC Davis. He is willing to lie and twist the truth to the insurance companies needs. He ignored evidence and lies about what is discussed in his office. As is the same with Newton Medical Group in the BAy Area of California. They are a insurance hired guns. If we cut them off at the pass we can stop the controversy they will create with the special interests groups blessings. People who are chemically injured are being attacked by these special interests groups because if one wins their case then others will so they try hard to make sure no one wins on chemical related injuries. It is big big money to lose for the insurance companies and they will stop at nothing to win. It is cheaper to pay someone off than pay the claims that follow. Such as the injured worker's own lawyers. Get the drift. |
| Injured with MCS |
Dr. Harrison (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 15:00:43 03/16/2001 I have since sent Dr. Harrison all kinds of medical evidence that shows I am chemically injured. IgG's elevated to Formaldehyde and other T cell problems and C cell junk. SPECT SCANS. Blood Tests. You name it all pointing to only one cause along with my work history, Chemicals. I still to this day have not received a supplemental report as I requested. He will not do it. Because of that I fell he should be held liable if my case is lost. He so far seems to be a major wolf in sheep's clothing. He is a good example for Dr. Allems his student. |
| Dangerous Doctors |
Re: Workers Comp:The real story. (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 15:04:00 03/16/2001 http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/dangerousdoctors |
| Sources of Tax Exempt $$$ for ACSH |
American Council on Science and Health (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 15:39:35 03/16/2001 American Council on Science and Health or group of cons united to make maoney in the name of science? Any one recognizes the names of well known quacks? Elizabeth Whelan, President, Member Board of Directors Frederick Stare, Board of Directors Stephen Barrett, Board of Scientific and Policy Advisors Michael Easley, Board of Scientific and Policy Advisors Ronald Gots, Board of Scientific and Policy Advisors Victor Herbert, Board of Scientific and Policy Advisors Michael Kamrin, Board of Scientific and Policy Advisors Ian Munro, Board of Scientific and Policy Advisors Sources of Tax Exempt $$$ for ACSH http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/funding.htm Give me a break! |
| quackslayer |
NAIR, MOHAN SHANKAR (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 03:27:16 03/20/2001 NAIR, MOHAN SHANKAR MOHAN S. NAIR is an M.D. allegedly acting as a PSYCHIATRIST, GENERAL SURGERY out of: PARTHENIA MEDICAL GROUP, INC. 8660 Woodley Avenue, North Hills, CA 91343 PARTHENIA MEDICAL GROUP INC. Be aware about group of QUACKS acting from PARTHENIA MEDICAL GROUP INC. The Group was established to sell fraudulent medical reports with litigation motivated diagnosis for fees to attorneys, and insurance industry in disability cases. The main business is to stage medical examinations made claims that medical examinations were performed and provide to attorneys the report to deny the liability. Specialyzing in Workers Compensation cases. The GROUP employes a majority of HINDU quacks with PhDs to impress the insurance, attorneys, clients, courts, and lay people. NAIR, MOHAN SHANKAR (562) 493-2218 5212 KATELLA AVE 106 LOS ALAMITOS , CA 90720 Very clean cut, and very impressive - con by physical presence. Almost amicable, smooth, and very hansom, woman may fall for him. This con stages medical examinations by forcing you to appear in his office and trying to obtain the copy of driver licence, so he can have proof of your physical presence. You will be given a paperwork to complete. NEVER write anything on it or sign at his request. Avoid any communication with him. His goal is to find your net worth, so they can find out how long you can go without income so they can drag the case for ever. You will be asked how much you pay rent. You will be asked how much you are asking in compensation for the injury. You will be asked when last time you had sex. Always answer to him that it is not his f.... business. Do not be intimidated. Than he will prepare the report, which you can not see. He will claim that as a lay person you will not understand, and that you are mentally sick so it may aggravate you, and can maake you snap. I was warned by several people that it is a standard strategy used by the group of cons so you can not sue them. Unfortunately if you are labelled as mentally ill, you will be denied workers compensation benefits as a mental condition unrelated to employment. That is a plan of their game. Unfortunatelly if they do prepare such opinion you will not be allowed to work at many occupations which may require the lowest security access, and you will be denied employment in the future. Do not allow those cons to label you and to frame you. Nair operates out of Parthenia Medical Group in California and covers teritory of California, Alaska and Hawaii. NAIR licence shall be revoked. Stay a way from this con, do not cooperate, it does not matter, the report is likelly cut before your visit with alleged staged examination. NAIR, MOHAN SHANKAR Address: 5212 KATELLA AVE 106 LOS ALAMITOS , CA 90720 Phone: (562) 493-2218 Fax: Specialty: PSYCHIATRY, GENERAL SURGERY Education: GRANT MED COLL, UNIV OF BOMBAY, BOMBAY, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA Graduation Year: 1975 Residencies: UNIV CA IRVINE MED CTR ORANGE,CA 92868 PSYCHIATRY 07/01/1979 - 06/30/1981 LEHIGH VALLEY HOSP ALLENTOWN,PA 18103 GENERAL SURGERY 07/01/1977 - 06/30/1978 MC LEAN HOSP BELMONT,MA 2478 PSYCHIATRY 07/01/1981 - 06/30/1983 |
| quackslayer |
MORGAN, EDWARD JOS III (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 03:33:56 03/20/2001 MORGAN, EDWARD JOS III 347 N KUAKINI ST HONOLULU , HI 96817 The main business is to stage medical examinations claiming "pre -existing" asthma, made claims that medical examinations were performed and provide to attorneys the report to deny the liability. Specialyzing in Workers Compensation cases. Defrauded several hundred injured with staged examintions. Academic apperance, compulsive liar! MORGAN, EDWARD JOS III Address: 347 N KUAKINI ST HONOLULU , HI 96817 Phone: Fax: Specialty: INTERNAL MEDICINE PULMONARY DISEASE Education: UNIV OF CA, LOS ANGELES, UCLA SCH OF MED, LOS ANGELES CA 90024 Graduation Year: 1974 Residencies: UNIV CO HLTH SCI CTR DENVER,CO 80262 INTERNAL MEDICINE 07/01/1974 - 06/30/1975 UNIV CO HLTH SCI CTR DENVER,CO 80262 PULMONARY DISEASE 07/01/1977 - 06/30/1979 MASS GEN HOSP BOSTON,MA 2114 INTERNAL MEDICINE 07/01/1976 - 06/30/1977 UNIV CO HLTH SCI CTR DENVER,CO 80262 INTERNAL MEDICINE 07/01/1975 - 06/30/1976 |
| Consumer reports February 2000 |
Workers Comp: Falling on job! The real story. Consumer Reports investigation! (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 06:02:12 04/10/2001 Workers comp: Falling down on the job When Lisa Wurgler was 27, she earned about $730 a week as a nurse at a hospital in Rugby, N.D. "I felt if my parents ever needed help, if they had to go into a nursing home, I would be in a position to take care of them," she says. Now, six years later, Wurgler says she gets $200 a week from Social Security. Her parents take care of her. In 1990, Jim Stotts, then 46, earned $33,000 a year as foreman of a city utility plant in Lafayette, La. He owned his own home and had $30,000 in retirement savings. Within 18 months, he had lost it all. In 1995, Jim Sargeant, now 37, was excited about his new job as a sales rep and distributor for a janitorial-equipment company, where he'd make $35,000 a year. He and his wife were expecting their third child. They had saved $13,000 toward a house, and they owned a minivan and a car. Two years later, short of cash, they had to give up their apartment, their cars, and all their savings. "We filed for bankruptcy," says Sargeant, of Clarkston, Wash. "We lost everything." What caused these people to fall from the security of a regular paycheck to near-destitution? All were injured on the job, and workers compensation--the program that is supposed to pay for their medical care and some lost income--failed to help. Lisa Wurgler injured her back lifting patients. But the North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau cut off her benefits when she refused to go to a pain clinic after two others did her no good (among the recommended therapies: anger-management classes). The bureau declined to comment. Jim Stotts suffered dizziness, burning nasal passages, sky-high blood pressure, headaches, and swollen eyes after being exposed to toxic solvent fumes while on the job at the power plant. Doctors recommended by his employer diagnosed him with toxic encephalopathy, a form of brain damage. But the city of Lafayette did not accept the diagnosis; according to the city's risk manager, tests showed no brain damage. It took five years to win his claim. And even then, the city did not pay Stotts' ongoing medical bills until a settlement was reached last year. Jim Sargeant, who was diagnosed with herniated disks after handling a 55-gallon drum of industrial cleaner, qualified for permanent disability under Social Security. A state board awarded him workers-comp benefits, but then withdrew them periodically. State officials have not returned our phone calls. Workers compensation, from which 1.8 million people collected cash benefits in 1998, was designed as a safety net for those who are injured or die on the job. And experts agree that the system can work, especially for people whose medical conditions clear up quickly. But for others, the system falls short. In the early 1990s, state legislatures across the nation, at the behest of insurance carriers and the business community, passed reform laws designed to improve the system. They did--for insurers and businesses. Workers-comp insurance, once the money-loser of the industry, grew fat with profits. And businesses saw premiums drop substantially from 1992 to 1996, a development that public officials say stimulates job growth. The old system needed changing, many agree. But instead of targeting insurance bureaucracies and employer fraud--two key problems that still exist--the new laws have generated profits for insurers and savings for employers mainly at the expense of injured workers. Those laws clamped down on benefits, raised eligibility requirements, and put medical treatment mainly in the hands of insurance companies, which can delay or deny medical care or income payments. The tactic is called "starving them out," according to former insurance claims adjuster Erik Grindal of Coral Gables, Fla., who is now a lawyer. While waiting for help, claimants spend down their savings and then, out of desperation, accept a settlement for only a fraction of what they should get. Robert Hartwig, chief economist of the Insurance Information Institute, defends the reforms. "The laws are designed to encourage people to go back to work," he says. And while qualifying for workers comp may be more difficult now, he adds, "If you disagree with the decision, you can appeal; you have recourse." JOHN McKAY of Monaca, Pa., with his wife Vickie and his son Nathan, 8, was a journeyman bricklayer before he injured his leg in 1992. Although he was declared permanently disabled and can't sit or stand well, his insurer forced him to take a telemarketing job. When he stopped working at the request of his doctor, his benefits were cut. Photos by Matt Bulvony Meanwhile, many people continue to believe the notion--propagated by the insurance industry--that workers who file for benefits are merely milking the system. Consumer Reports' chief medical adviser reviewed available documents of people whose stories are profiled in these pages and found evidence of disabling injuries. But all of them say they were treated like cheats. Observes Ernie Delmazzo, 42, a truck driver who hurt his neck in 1996 and now heads the Oregon Injured Workers' Alliance, one of dozens of citizen groups that have grown up around the country in the last decade: "It's a psychological nightmare. Even your neighbors look at you like you're a fraud." To be sure, some workers abuse the system, though nobody knows exactly to what extent. The National Insurance Crime Bureau, an industry group, says workers-comp claimant fraud costs carriers about $2.4 billion a year. But the group concedes that's just a guess. Conning & Co., an insurance research firm, put claimant fraud at about 1.9 percent of premiums paid--or $477 million. In Florida, claimant-fraud cases typically average $10,000 in undeserved payouts, says Ron Poindexter, director of the state's division of insurance fraud. By contrast, he says, employers who fail to buy workers-comp insurance or cheat on their premiums by reclassifying workers in less dangerous and less costly job categories are bilking insurers out of millions annually. Worse, the injured employees end up filing for Social Security or public assistance, which may pay less and be harder to get. A vital safety net Workers-compensation laws, adopted by all states between 1911 and 1940, were designed to accomplish two goals: to provide medical care and income to workers injured on the job and death benefits to families of those who died, and to protect employers from costly and unpredictable lawsuits by workers. While each state has its own tangle of laws and regulations, most states require all businesses, except the very smallest, to provide workers-compensation coverage for their employees. To pay for the liability, employers buy insurance, usually from private carriers or state-run insurance funds, or they insure themselves. If you're injured on the job, you typically have no choice but to go through the workers-comp insurance system. Your regular health-care provider can and will turn you down for medical coverage--even if you have great benefits--if it discovers you were injured at work. As for lost income, many U.S. workers would have little help without workers comp if they were laid up from an on-the-job accident or an illness. Social Security Disability Income pays a stipend to anyone who is permanently and totally disabled, but it's generally much smaller than workers comp. Benefits available to injured workers were never princely, but by the 1970s their levels had sunk so far below the poverty line that President Nixon appointed the National Commission on State Workmen's Compensation Laws to study the problem. It recommended, among other things, that states pay totally disabled workers at least two-thirds of their salaries (workers comp is not taxable, so in theory workers don't need all their wages), up to a cap of 100 percent of the state's average weekly wage. Fearing federal takeover, states raised benefits. But as of last year, 17 states still didn't meet that standard wage. Reforms cut benefits and costs By the mid-1980s, however, insurance carriers found themselves deep in trouble. Medical expenses were increasing by about 11 percent a year, and returns had dropped on the investments that insurers maintain to pay future claims. Premiums were insufficient, and the workers-comp line of insurance lost money every year from 1984 to 1992. Carriers beseeched state insurance regulators for steep premium increases, blaming their losses on runaway benefit costs and claimant fraud. However, John Burton, dean of the School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers University and chairman of the national workers-comp commission, says the losses came partly because insurers had previously made excessive cuts in premiums to attract customers. As rates spiked, employers complained to governors and state legislators that there was a crisis. High workers-comp rates, they argued--then about $2.20 for every $100 of payroll --would sink businesses, throw state economies into a recession, and eliminate jobs. To whip up public support for reform, the insurance industry took its case to TV stations and newspapers across the nation. A powerful weapon was videotape culled from private investigators showing workers cheating small businesses. In a ten-day period in December 1991, no fewer than five reports appeared in the national media, including a "20/20" segment showing claimants committing outrageous abuses. Eric Oxfeld, president of UWC-Strategic Services on Unemployment and Workers' Compensation, which lobbies for insurers on this issue, now concedes that claimant fraud was never a major driver of workers-comp costs. "People understand fraud," he says. "So it got more attention perhaps than it deserved." The campaign succeeded. In the last decade, 29 states passed major workers-comp laws designed to cut costs. For the most part, legislatures chose from a menu of standard remedies. They allowed insurers to establish managed-care programs that would require claimants to get treatment from insurer- or employer-approved doctors. Several states reduced the number of weeks that workers could collect, stopped benefits when an employee could return to any work, and cut off payments when a claimant reached age 65, whether or not he qualified for Social Security. And 12 states passed provisions cutting workers-comp benefits if claimants also collected money from Social Security or from their own pension. Benefits and employer costs, as a percentage of payroll, dropped by more than 20 percent from 1992 to 1996, although many workplace-safety experts believe that some of the decline comes from safety measures adopted by employers, a decreasing percentage of dangerous jobs in the economy, and greater employer willingness to hire the disabled. If the Occupational Safety and Health Administration goes ahead with new ergonomics regulations, repetitive-stress injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome could decline further. Insurers had another reason to cheer: The Social Security offset handed them a multimillion-dollar windfall. By 1995, workers-comp carriers had become the envy of the insurance industry, with annual operating profits of 20 percent. More companies entered the business, and soon insurers were battling each other to cut premiums. Rates dropped further, and state officials crowed with joy: "We have driven a stake through the heart of the No. 1 job killer in California," said Pete Wilson, then the governor, upon passage of the state's reform in 1993. The new laws not only reduced benefits but made them harder to collect. In many states, the burden is now on workers to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their injuries occurred as a result of their job and not poor health habits, aging, or a pre-existing medical condition. To win a claim, says Cleveland workers-comp attorney Harold Ticktin, a worker practically has to be "convicted of injury on the job." The result is that ill and injured workers now must fight a series of battles: first, to get medical care; next, to withstand exams by insurance-company doctors who have an incentive to find excuses not to pay; then, to get a fair assessment of any permanent disability; and finally, to win a hearing if there's a dispute. Delays in medical care These days medical care doesn't come without a struggle. In 38 states injured workers have to choose a doctor from a company-approved list or managed-care program controlled by the insurer. The doctor may give them a palliative--even for a painful or serious injury--until the insurer agrees to pay for more-expensive care including tests, visits to specialists, surgery, or medication. If there's a dispute, the worker must petition for a hearing before one of the state workers-comp judges. That may add days or months to the wait for treatment. For example, when Dr. Harvey Baumann, a Providence, R.I., plastic surgeon who treats hand injuries, recommends that a postsurgical workers-comp patient receive rehabilitation, the insurer will grant only nine sessions--"enough for three weeks," he says, and often, not enough. "Even if I write or call the claims adjuster asking for more sessions right away, the carrier will leave the patient waiting. By the time the insurer agrees to another nine sessions, the good of the first nine is lost." Withholding or delaying such care has cut insurers' medical cost increases to 3 percent per year this decade, from 11 percent per year in the 1980s. Those savings, however, can exacerbate the frustration and stress for some injured workers. "People become so desperate and depressed they can never return to a normal life," Baumann says. Take the case of Paul Nessmith, a carpenter from Fort Lauderdale, Fla. In 1993 he injured his knee when he fell off a scaffold. A specialist recommended that the 24-year-old undergo arthroscopic surgery. Associated Industries of Florida, the insurer, insisted on a second opinion from its own independent medical examiner--but the claims adjuster took four months to set up the appointment. The new doctor approved the surgery, but it couldn't fix the problem, according to Nessmith's attorney, Andrea Wolfson. Nessmith's doctor told him they would try again, but the insurer wanted another independent assessment, which meant another four-month wait. He eventually got the surgery, but it did no good, his attorney says. He tried to look for work as the insurer demanded, his wife says, but with only a tenth-grade education plus a leg brace and a cane, no one would hire him. The insurer contended, however, that he wasn't making a real effort and cut off his benefits. His wife, Susan, couldn't work because Paul couldn't take care of their baby, she says, adding that the family survived by borrowing from relatives and friends. Four years later, after several hearings, a workers-comp judge ordered the insurer to pay Nessmith previously owed and ongoing benefits. The insurer made good on old payments, but paid no more. Wolfson was forced to go to court again, she says, "just to get him what the judge had already ordered." Nessmith took his own life in March 1998 by swallowing "all the prescription drugs he could lay his hands on," Wolfson says. Two days later, she received notification from the insurer that it was declaring Nessmith permanently and totally disabled and would pay Susan a $100,000 death benefit. The company declined comment on the case. The second opinion Getting medical care depends on the opinion of an independent medical examiner (IME), a physician called in to assess a patient's condition. IMEs are paid by the insurer. On average, they earn $507 per consultation, according to a 1997 survey of 266 IMEs conducted by SEAK, a medical-seminar company. Specialists like psychiatrists earn as much as $900 per consult. The high fees are justified, says Dr. Chris Brigham, editor of The American Medical Association's The Guides Newsletter, which helps doctors and others evaluate workers-comp cases. A proper exam, he says, should include a complete review of the patient's medical records, a thorough interview, an appropriate physical examination (which typically takes about an hour and a half), and a written report--possibly a four- or five-hour job. Determining the severity and cause of an illness is a complicated task, and careful professionals can disagree. But more than a dozen injured workers who spoke to Consumer Reports, whom we found through lawsuits, injured-worker groups, and the Internet, uniformly complained of doctors who clearly hadn't read their medical records and of examinations that lasted no more than 15 minutes. And even though a negative report from an IME can play a big part in an insurance company's decision to cut off benefits immediately and unilaterally, workers in some states can't have anyone witness an exam except for their treating physician, who may not be available. Others can't even know what's in an IME's report until it becomes evidence at an official hearing. IMEs also examine a worker's medical history to find other explanations for the illness or injury. In Oregon, for example, if 51 percent of the cause of the medical problem is attributable not to the job but to ordinary aging or a pre-existing medical condition, the worker gets nothing at all. JIM STOTTS, 55, breathed in toxic fumes at a Lafayette, La., power plant where he worked for 18 years. His doctors said that he had suffered brain damage, but his employer disallowed his workers-comp claim and terminated him. After Jim Stotts was diagnosed with toxic encephalopathy, for example, his employer called in an IME. In a letter to the IME, Lafayette's risk- management division suggested that his illness might be explained by alcohol abuse: "The application completed for physician's appointment ... shows that Mr. Stotts consumed approximately 40 drinks over ... one weekend," it read. A copy of the application shows that Stotts admitted to an alcohol problem--12 years earlier. "The last time I had taken a drink was in 1978," he says. Insurers sometimes shop patients around to a series of IMEs, flying them out of state and putting them up at motels. According to "Unjust Treatment," a 1998 New York AFL-CIO report, IME documents are often altered to please insurers. Mary Jeffords, 43, has two steel rods and four screws near the base of her spine and uses two canes to get around the apartment complex for the handicapped where she lives in Sanborn, N.Y. She was injured in 1987 in a brutal beating by a mentally retarded patient at the group home where she worked as a weekend supervisor. She spent a total of four months in the hospital and won benefits only last year--12 years after the attack--as a permanently and totally disabled person. Still asserting that she wasn't as injured as she claimed, Liberty Mutual, the insurer, asked for an assessment by an IME in 1996. After a hearing at which Liberty Mutual contended that Jeffords was only moderately disabled, she requested a copy of the report, and two surfaced. Both reports, dated the same day, were identical until the conclusion on page 7; one called her disability "total," while the second said it was "moderate." After Jeffords complained to the New York attorney general about the two reports, however, her IME said that he had merely altered his initial opinion after reviewing his notes. Liberty Mutual said it had nothing to do with his change of mind. Meanwhile, the judge refused to reduce Jeffords' benefits. Winning lost wages An insurer makes temporary total disability payments, usually two-thirds of salary up to the state cap, until a worker reaches "maximum medical improvement." Then a doctor may release the claimant for work or assess any permanent impairment that prevents a return to the job. The conclusion, whatever it is, will determine how much an injured worker can collect in lost wages permanently. States should weigh many elements in determining a person's disability: education, age, capacity for retraining, pain, and so on, says Brigham of the American Medical Association newsletter. Thirty-eight states use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Impairment. Some go solely by the impairment scores set forth in the Guides--even though Chapter 1 warns that financial awards should be not be based solely on scores. In many states, having severely damaged shoulders is a 15 percent whole-person impairment, so if two-thirds of a worker's average weekly wage is $500, he would get $75 a week no matter how important shoulders are in doing his job. About 1 to 3 percent of injured workers are declared totally and permanently disabled and receive the maximum state benefits. In a 1998 study of partially disabled workers who were injured in the early 1990s in California, Robert Reville, a RAND Institute analyst, found that generally claimants receive about 30 percent of their previous income instead of the two-thirds that the national commission had recommended. "They try to return to work," he says, "but their condition makes it hard for them to earn as much as before or to retain jobs." Appealing an insurer's decision A claimant who has been denied a medical treatment or wage-loss benefit has to take his or her case to the state workers-compensation board. That's no simple task. In Florida, which supposedly has a streamlined system, claimants must first meet with an ombudsman who tries to work out the problem with the insurance company. If that fails, there's a settlement conference, and if that fails, a trial before an administrative judge. Except for ombudsman meetings, the procedures are legal affairs, generally requiring depositions, testimony, and filing fees. Pursuing a case may take years. When the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions polled states about how long it took for claims to get from an application for a hearing to the judge's decision, only 13 states responded. The average lag time ranged from 30 days in Michigan to 1 1/2 years in Iowa. According to the California Compensation Institute, 43 percent of that state's cases are still open after 3 1/2 years. Many states limit workers-comp lawyers to small fees. One aim, of course, is to keep workers from being gouged. But the caps also have had an unintended effect: further prolonging the process. In 28 states, insurers or state funds are required to pay a worker's legal bills if the worker wins a dispute. The bills are so small, says former Louisiana workers-comp judge Aimee Johnson, "There's not much incentive for insurers to pay a claim without challenging it." And plenty of attorneys, says Ernie Delmazzo of the Oregon Injured Workers Alliance, prod workers to accept small lump-sum settlements rather than fighting it out in court for doubtful rewards. By contrast, there are no limits on what insurance companies can pay their own lawyers to defend them from claims. Even when workers win, their benefits may be cut off if they don't cooperate with their insurer. John McKay, 48, of Monaca, Pa., is a former journeyman bricklayer who injured his knee and sustained nerve damage in his legs when a scaffold collapsed in 1992. He was declared permanently impaired; he can't walk well, and sitting for any length of time is painful. But in February 1997, Cigna, his insurer, forced him to take a job with a telemarketing company under a program the insurer subsidized. Hearings last year before the Pennsylvania Senate Labor and Industry Committee revealed that the businesses involved failed to determine whether disabled workers could actually perform the work, rarely gave much training, and, after six months, either fired workers for incompetence or complained to insurers that they were uncooperative. McKay received only one half-hour of training, he says, but persevered for six months by taking double his usual amount of pain medications. When he stopped working at his doctor's request, Cigna would not restore his benefits--though he got them restored six months later. The insurer declined to comment. One-sided attack on fraud In their reform laws, 18 states set up special agencies to ferret out workers-comp fraud. It's important to crack down on cheaters; they boost premiums and the cost of goods and services for everyone. But most current enforcement efforts are one-sided: In almost all jurisdictions, the target is the claimant. Yet fraud by medical providers and employers is much more significant. The Texas Research and Oversight Council on Workers' Compensation found that in 1996, fraudulent billing by doctors and other health-care providers cost about $1.2 million--more than eight times the $134,000 in phony worker claims that were uncovered. In Florida, a 1997 grand jury report found that about 13 percent of a sampling of the state's businesses carried no workers-comp coverage, even though most are legally required to do so. Florida, Minnesota, Arkansas, and California have started efforts to prosecute employer fraud, but in many states it's not a priority. Claimant fraud is a felony, but a company's failure to carry workers-comp insurance may be only a misdemeanor. SUSAN NESSMITH'S husband Paul, a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., carpenter, took his own life in 1998 after a five-year battle with his insurer to get medical benefits for his injured knee. "He was in constant pain and depressed because he couldn't take care of me and our daughter," she says. Two days after his death, she received word from the company that it had declared him permanently and totally disabled and awarded benefits. These days, medical costs, which held steady in the early 1990s, have started spiking again. And as in their lush years, workers-comp carriers have allowed claims-handling expenses to steadily increase while cutting rates too far to cover them, according to a 1999 report on the workers-comp industry by Conning & Co., the research firm. Employers are paying about 20 percent less than they should be, says Hartwig of the Insurance Information Institute. Insurance companies are again saying that unless something gives, premiums will rise. "Reform," says lobbyist Oxfeld, "is by no means at an end." Recommendations Workers deserve more help from the workers-compensation system than they're getting. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration should persist in its enforcement and regulatory efforts to make the workplace safer. The easiest way to keep workers-comp premiums and benefits low is to cut on-the-job accidents and illnesses. Congress should revive standards set by the National Commission on State Workmen's Compensation Laws, which, among other things, asked that benefit caps be raised to 100 percent of each state's average weekly wage. States should audit their workers-comp systems to see whether they're too restrictive. States should also tighten deadlines for decisions and fine parties that delay, to discourage "starve out" tactics. Workers who receive good prompt treatment are less likely to be permanently impaired. Workers should contact their state labor department to see if their employers have workers-compensation insurance, if there's any doubt. When considering a job, they should ask if the company offers group private long-term disability insurance. Consumers can also buy long-term disability insurance on their own. If you become injured on the job, immediately report the circumstances and date in writing to your employer and get a receipt. For more information on workers comp, visit www.aflcio.org/safety/comp.htm. • How believable are claims? • A look at reform laws Who gets injured and how. Workers in private industry reported 1.8 million injuries and illnesses that required time off work in 1997, the most recent year available. We list the most common injuries, and, based on 1998 data, some industries with relatively high rates per 100 full-time workers. Injuries and illnesses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Injury and illness rates by industry -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sprains, strains 43.6 % Air transportation 8.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bruises -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aluminum foundries -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cuts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Concrete block and brick -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fractures -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prepared flour mixes and doughs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Multiple traumatic injuries -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bottled and canned soft drinks -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heat burns -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commercial laundry equipment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carpal tunnel syndrome -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Logging -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tendinitis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Truck and bus body work -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chemical burns -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prefabricated wood buildings -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amputations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shipbuilding and repair -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24.8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 2000 Workers comp: Falling down on the job When Lisa Wurgler was 27, she earned about $730 a week as a nurse at a hospital in Rugby, N.D. "I felt if my parents ever needed help, if they had to go into a nursing home, I would be in a position to take care of them," she says. Now, six years later, Wurgler says she gets $200 a week from Social Security. Her parents take care of her. In 1990, Jim Stotts, then 46, earned $33,000 a year as foreman of a city utility plant in Lafayette, La. He owned his own home and had $30,000 in retirement savings. Within 18 months, he had lost it all. In 1995, Jim Sargeant, now 37, was excited about his new job as a sales rep and distributor for a janitorial-equipment company, where he'd make $35,000 a year. He and his wife were expecting their third child. They had saved $13,000 toward a house, and they owned a minivan and a car. Two years later, short of cash, they had to give up their apartment, their cars, and all their savings. "We filed for bankruptcy," says Sargeant, of Clarkston, Wash. "We lost everything." What caused these people to fall from the security of a regular paycheck to near-destitution? All were injured on the job, and workers compensation--the program that is supposed to pay for their medical care and some lost income--failed to help. Lisa Wurgler injured her back lifting patients. But the North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau cut off her benefits when she refused to go to a pain clinic after two others did her no good (among the recommended therapies: anger-management classes). The bureau declined to comment. Jim Stotts suffered dizziness, burning nasal passages, sky-high blood pressure, headaches, and swollen eyes after being exposed to toxic solvent fumes while on the job at the power plant. Doctors recommended by his employer diagnosed him with toxic encephalopathy, a form of brain damage. But the city of Lafayette did not accept the diagnosis; according to the city's risk manager, tests showed no brain damage. It took five years to win his claim. And even then, the city did not pay Stotts' ongoing medical bills until a settlement was reached last year. Jim Sargeant, who was diagnosed with herniated disks after handling a 55-gallon drum of industrial cleaner, qualified for permanent disability under Social Security. A state board awarded him workers-comp benefits, but then withdrew them periodically. State officials have not returned our phone calls. Workers compensation, from which 1.8 million people collected cash benefits in 1998, was designed as a safety net for those who are injured or die on the job. And experts agree that the system can work, especially for people whose medical conditions clear up quickly. But for others, the system falls short. In the early 1990s, state legislatures across the nation, at the behest of insurance carriers and the business community, passed reform laws designed to improve the system. They did--for insurers and businesses. Workers-comp insurance, once the money-loser of the industry, grew fat with profits. And businesses saw premiums drop substantially from 1992 to 1996, a development that public officials say stimulates job growth. The old system needed changing, many agree. But instead of targeting insurance bureaucracies and employer fraud--two key problems that still exist--the new laws have generated profits for insurers and savings for employers mainly at the expense of injured workers. Those laws clamped down on benefits, raised eligibility requirements, and put medical treatment mainly in the hands of insurance companies, which can delay or deny medical care or income payments. The tactic is called "starving them out," according to former insurance claims adjuster Erik Grindal of Coral Gables, Fla., who is now a lawyer. While waiting for help, claimants spend down their savings and then, out of desperation, accept a settlement for only a fraction of what they should get. Robert Hartwig, chief economist of the Insurance Information Institute, defends the reforms. "The laws are designed to encourage people to go back to work," he says. And while qualifying for workers comp may be more difficult now, he adds, "If you disagree with the decision, you can appeal; you have recourse." JOHN McKAY of Monaca, Pa., with his wife Vickie and his son Nathan, 8, was a journeyman bricklayer before he injured his leg in 1992. Although he was declared permanently disabled and can't sit or stand well, his insurer forced him to take a telemarketing job. When he stopped working at the request of his doctor, his benefits were cut. Photos by Matt Bulvony Meanwhile, many people continue to believe the notion--propagated by the insurance industry--that workers who file for benefits are merely milking the system. Consumer Reports' chief medical adviser reviewed available documents of people whose stories are profiled in these pages and found evidence of disabling injuries. But all of them say they were treated like cheats. Observes Ernie Delmazzo, 42, a truck driver who hurt his neck in 1996 and now heads the Oregon Injured Workers' Alliance, one of dozens of citizen groups that have grown up around the country in the last decade: "It's a psychological nightmare. Even your neighbors look at you like you're a fraud." To be sure, some workers abuse the system, though nobody knows exactly to what extent. The National Insurance Crime Bureau, an industry group, says workers-comp claimant fraud costs carriers about $2.4 billion a year. But the group concedes that's just a guess. Conning & Co., an insurance research firm, put claimant fraud at about 1.9 percent of premiums paid--or $477 million. In Florida, claimant-fraud cases typically average $10,000 in undeserved payouts, says Ron Poindexter, director of the state's division of insurance fraud. By contrast, he says, employers who fail to buy workers-comp insurance or cheat on their premiums by reclassifying workers in less dangerous and less costly job categories are bilking insurers out of millions annually. Worse, the injured employees end up filing for Social Security or public assistance, which may pay less and be harder to get. A vital safety net Workers-compensation laws, adopted by all states between 1911 and 1940, were designed to accomplish two goals: to provide medical care and income to workers injured on the job and death benefits to families of those who died, and to protect employers from costly and unpredictable lawsuits by workers. While each state has its own tangle of laws and regulations, most states require all businesses, except the very smallest, to provide workers-compensation coverage for their employees. To pay for the liability, employers buy insurance, usually from private carriers or state-run insurance funds, or they insure themselves. If you're injured on the job, you typically have no choice but to go through the workers-comp insurance system. Your regular health-care provider can and will turn you down for medical coverage--even if you have great benefits--if it discovers you were injured at work. As for lost income, many U.S. workers would have little help without workers comp if they were laid up from an on-the-job accident or an illness. Social Security Disability Income pays a stipend to anyone who is permanently and totally disabled, but it's generally much smaller than workers comp. Benefits available to injured workers were never princely, but by the 1970s their levels had sunk so far below the poverty line that President Nixon appointed the National Commission on State Workmen's Compensation Laws to study the problem. It recommended, among other things, that states pay totally disabled workers at least two-thirds of their salaries (workers comp is not taxable, so in theory workers don't need all their wages), up to a cap of 100 percent of the state's average weekly wage. Fearing federal takeover, states raised benefits. But as of last year, 17 states still didn't meet that standard wage. Reforms cut benefits and costs By the mid-1980s, however, insurance carriers found themselves deep in trouble. Medical expenses were increasing by about 11 percent a year, and returns had dropped on the investments that insurers maintain to pay future claims. Premiums were insufficient, and the workers-comp line of insurance lost money every year from 1984 to 1992. Carriers beseeched state insurance regulators for steep premium increases, blaming their losses on runaway benefit costs and claimant fraud. However, John Burton, dean of the School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers University and chairman of the national workers-comp commission, says the losses came partly because insurers had previously made excessive cuts in premiums to attract customers. As rates spiked, employers complained to governors and state legislators that there was a crisis. High workers-comp rates, they argued--then about $2.20 for every $100 of payroll --would sink businesses, throw state economies into a recession, and eliminate jobs. To whip up public support for reform, the insurance industry took its case to TV stations and newspapers across the nation. A powerful weapon was videotape culled from private investigators showing workers cheating small businesses. In a ten-day period in December 1991, no fewer than five reports appeared in the national media, including a "20/20" segment showing claimants committing outrageous abuses. Eric Oxfeld, president of UWC-Strategic Services on Unemployment and Workers' Compensation, which lobbies for insurers on this issue, now concedes that claimant fraud was never a major driver of workers-comp costs. "People understand fraud," he says. "So it got more attention perhaps than it deserved." The campaign succeeded. In the last decade, 29 states passed major workers-comp laws designed to cut costs. For the most part, legislatures chose from a menu of standard remedies. They allowed insurers to establish managed-care programs that would require claimants to get treatment from insurer- or employer-approved doctors. Several states reduced the number of weeks that workers could collect, stopped benefits when an employee could return to any work, and cut off payments when a claimant reached age 65, whether or not he qualified for Social Security. And 12 states passed provisions cutting workers-comp benefits if claimants also collected money from Social Security or from their own pension. Benefits and employer costs, as a percentage of payroll, dropped by more than 20 percent from 1992 to 1996, although many workplace-safety experts believe that some of the decline comes from safety measures adopted by employers, a decreasing percentage of dangerous jobs in the economy, and greater employer willingness to hire the disabled. If the Occupational Safety and Health Administration goes ahead with new ergonomics regulations, repetitive-stress injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome could decline further. Insurers had another reason to cheer: The Social Security offset handed them a multimillion-dollar windfall. By 1995, workers-comp carriers had become the envy of the insurance industry, with annual operating profits of 20 percent. More companies entered the business, and soon insurers were battling each other to cut premiums. Rates dropped further, and state officials crowed with joy: "We have driven a stake through the heart of the No. 1 job killer in California," said Pete Wilson, then the governor, upon passage of the state's reform in 1993. The new laws not only reduced benefits but made them harder to collect. In many states, the burden is now on workers to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their injuries occurred as a result of their job and not poor health habits, aging, or a pre-existing medical condition. To win a claim, says Cleveland workers-comp attorney Harold Ticktin, a worker practically has to be "convicted of injury on the job." The result is that ill and injured workers now must fight a series of battles: first, to get medical care; next, to withstand exams by insurance-company doctors who have an incentive to find excuses not to pay; then, to get a fair assessment of any permanent disability; and finally, to win a hearing if there's a dispute. Delays in medical care These days medical care doesn't come without a struggle. In 38 states injured workers have to choose a doctor from a company-approved list or managed-care program controlled by the insurer. The doctor may give them a palliative--even for a painful or serious injury--until the insurer agrees to pay for more-expensive care including tests, visits to specialists, surgery, or medication. If there's a dispute, the worker must petition for a hearing before one of the state workers-comp judges. That may add days or months to the wait for treatment. For example, when Dr. Harvey Baumann, a Providence, R.I., plastic surgeon who treats hand injuries, recommends that a postsurgical workers-comp patient receive rehabilitation, the insurer will grant only nine sessions--"enough for three weeks," he says, and often, not enough. "Even if I write or call the claims adjuster asking for more sessions right away, the carrier will leave the patient waiting. By the time the insurer agrees to another nine sessions, the good of the first nine is lost." Withholding or delaying such care has cut insurers' medical cost increases to 3 percent per year this decade, from 11 percent per year in the 1980s. Those savings, however, can exacerbate the frustration and stress for some injured workers. "People become so desperate and depressed they can never return to a normal life," Baumann says. Take the case of Paul Nessmith, a carpenter from Fort Lauderdale, Fla. In 1993 he injured his knee when he fell off a scaffold. A specialist recommended that the 24-year-old undergo arthroscopic surgery. Associated Industries of Florida, the insurer, insisted on a second opinion from its own independent medical examiner--but the claims adjuster took four months to set up the appointment. The new doctor approved the surgery, but it couldn't fix the problem, according to Nessmith's attorney, Andrea Wolfson. Nessmith's doctor told him they would try again, but the insurer wanted another independent assessment, which meant another four-month wait. He eventually got the surgery, but it did no good, his attorney says. He tried to look for work as the insurer demanded, his wife says, but with only a tenth-grade education plus a leg brace and a cane, no one would hire him. The insurer contended, however, that he wasn't making a real effort and cut off his benefits. His wife, Susan, couldn't work because Paul couldn't take care of their baby, she says, adding that the family survived by borrowing from relatives and friends. Four years later, after several hearings, a workers-comp judge ordered the insurer to pay Nessmith previously owed and ongoing benefits. The insurer made good on old payments, but paid no more. Wolfson was forced to go to court again, she says, "just to get him what the judge had already ordered." Nessmith took his own life in March 1998 by swallowing "all the prescription drugs he could lay his hands on," Wolfson says. Two days later, she received notification from the insurer that it was declaring Nessmith permanently and totally disabled and would pay Susan a $100,000 death benefit. The company declined comment on the case. The second opinion Getting medical care depends on the opinion of an independent medical examiner (IME), a physician called in to assess a patient's condition. IMEs are paid by the insurer. On average, they earn $507 per consultation, according to a 1997 survey of 266 IMEs conducted by SEAK, a medical-seminar company. Specialists like psychiatrists earn as much as $900 per consult. The high fees are justified, says Dr. Chris Brigham, editor of The American Medical Association's The Guides Newsletter, which helps doctors and others evaluate workers-comp cases. A proper exam, he says, should include a complete review of the patient's medical records, a thorough interview, an appropriate physical examination (which typically takes about an hour and a half), and a written report--possibly a four- or five-hour job. Determining the severity and cause of an illness is a complicated task, and careful professionals can disagree. But more than a dozen injured workers who spoke to Consumer Reports, whom we found through lawsuits, injured-worker groups, and the Internet, uniformly complained of doctors who clearly hadn't read their medical records and of examinations that lasted no more than 15 minutes. And even though a negative report from an IME can play a big part in an insurance company's decision to cut off benefits immediately and unilaterally, workers in some states can't have anyone witness an exam except for their treating physician, who may not be available. Others can't even know what's in an IME's report until it becomes evidence at an official hearing. IMEs also examine a worker's medical history to find other explanations for the illness or injury. In Oregon, for example, if 51 percent of the cause of the medical problem is attributable not to the job but to ordinary aging or a pre-existing medical condition, the worker gets nothing at all. JIM STOTTS, 55, breathed in toxic fumes at a Lafayette, La., power plant where he worked for 18 years. His doctors said that he had suffered brain damage, but his employer disallowed his workers-comp claim and terminated him. After Jim Stotts was diagnosed with toxic encephalopathy, for example, his employer called in an IME. In a letter to the IME, Lafayette's risk- management division suggested that his illness might be explained by alcohol abuse: "The application completed for physician's appointment ... shows that Mr. Stotts consumed approximately 40 drinks over ... one weekend," it read. A copy of the application shows that Stotts admitted to an alcohol problem--12 years earlier. "The last time I had taken a drink was in 1978," he says. Insurers sometimes shop patients around to a series of IMEs, flying them out of state and putting them up at motels. According to "Unjust Treatment," a 1998 New York AFL-CIO report, IME documents are often altered to please insurers. Mary Jeffords, 43, has two steel rods and four screws near the base of her spine and uses two canes to get around the apartment complex for the handicapped where she lives in Sanborn, N.Y. She was injured in 1987 in a brutal beating by a mentally retarded patient at the group home where she worked as a weekend supervisor. She spent a total of four months in the hospital and won benefits only last year--12 years after the attack--as a permanently and totally disabled person. Still asserting that she wasn't as injured as she claimed, Liberty Mutual, the insurer, asked for an assessment by an IME in 1996. After a hearing at which Liberty Mutual contended that Jeffords was only moderately disabled, she requested a copy of the report, and two surfaced. Both reports, dated the same day, were identical until the conclusion on page 7; one called her disability "total," while the second said it was "moderate." After Jeffords complained to the New York attorney general about the two reports, however, her IME said that he had merely altered his initial opinion after reviewing his notes. Liberty Mutual said it had nothing to do with his change of mind. Meanwhile, the judge refused to reduce Jeffords' benefits. Winning lost wages An insurer makes temporary total disability payments, usually two-thirds of salary up to the state cap, until a worker reaches "maximum medical improvement." Then a doctor may release the claimant for work or assess any permanent impairment that prevents a return to the job. The conclusion, whatever it is, will determine how much an injured worker can collect in lost wages permanently. States should weigh many elements in determining a person's disability: education, age, capacity for retraining, pain, and so on, says Brigham of the American Medical Association newsletter. Thirty-eight states use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Impairment. Some go solely by the impairment scores set forth in the Guides--even though Chapter 1 warns that financial awards should be not be based solely on scores. In many states, having severely damaged shoulders is a 15 percent whole-person impairment, so if two-thirds of a worker's average weekly wage is $500, he would get $75 a week no matter how important shoulders are in doing his job. About 1 to 3 percent of injured workers are declared totally and permanently disabled and receive the maximum state benefits. In a 1998 study of partially disabled workers who were injured in the early 1990s in California, Robert Reville, a RAND Institute analyst, found that generally claimants receive about 30 percent of their previous income instead of the two-thirds that the national commission had recommended. "They try to return to work," he says, "but their condition makes it hard for them to earn as much as before or to retain jobs." Appealing an insurer's decision A claimant who has been denied a medical treatment or wage-loss benefit has to take his or her case to the state workers-compensation board. That's no simple task. In Florida, which supposedly has a streamlined system, claimants must first meet with an ombudsman who tries to work out the problem with the insurance company. If that fails, there's a settlement conference, and if that fails, a trial before an administrative judge. Except for ombudsman meetings, the procedures are legal affairs, generally requiring depositions, testimony, and filing fees. Pursuing a case may take years. When the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions polled states about how long it took for claims to get from an application for a hearing to the judge's decision, only 13 states responded. The average lag time ranged from 30 days in Michigan to 1 1/2 years in Iowa. According to the California Compensation Institute, 43 percent of that state's cases are still open after 3 1/2 years. Many states limit workers-comp lawyers to small fees. One aim, of course, is to keep workers from being gouged. But the caps also have had an unintended effect: further prolonging the process. In 28 states, insurers or state funds are required to pay a worker's legal bills if the worker wins a dispute. The bills are so small, says former Louisiana workers-comp judge Aimee Johnson, "There's not much incentive for insurers to pay a claim without challenging it." And plenty of attorneys, says Ernie Delmazzo of the Oregon Injured Workers Alliance, prod workers to accept small lump-sum settlements rather than fighting it out in court for doubtful rewards. By contrast, there are no limits on what insurance companies can pay their own lawyers to defend them from claims. Even when workers win, their benefits may be cut off if they don't cooperate with their insurer. John McKay, 48, of Monaca, Pa., is a former journeyman bricklayer who injured his knee and sustained nerve damage in his legs when a scaffold collapsed in 1992. He was declared permanently impaired; he can't walk well, and sitting for any length of time is painful. But in February 1997, Cigna, his insurer, forced him to take a job with a telemarketing company under a program the insurer subsidized. Hearings last year before the Pennsylvania Senate Labor and Industry Committee revealed that the businesses involved failed to determine whether disabled workers could actually perform the work, rarely gave much training, and, after six months, either fired workers for incompetence or complained to insurers that they were uncooperative. McKay received only one half-hour of training, he says, but persevered for six months by taking double his usual amount of pain medications. When he stopped working at his doctor's request, Cigna would not restore his benefits--though he got them restored six months later. The insurer declined to comment. One-sided attack on fraud In their reform laws, 18 states set up special agencies to ferret out workers-comp fraud. It's important to crack down on cheaters; they boost premiums and the cost of goods and services for everyone. But most current enforcement efforts are one-sided: In almost all jurisdictions, the target is the claimant. Yet fraud by medical providers and employers is much more significant. The Texas Research and Oversight Council on Workers' Compensation found that in 1996, fraudulent billing by doctors and other health-care providers cost about $1.2 million--more than eight times the $134,000 in phony worker claims that were uncovered. In Florida, a 1997 grand jury report found that about 13 percent of a sampling of the state's businesses carried no workers-comp coverage, even though most are legally required to do so. Florida, Minnesota, Arkansas, and California have started efforts to prosecute employer fraud, but in many states it's not a priority. Claimant fraud is a felony, but a company's failure to carry workers-comp insurance may be only a misdemeanor. SUSAN NESSMITH'S husband Paul, a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., carpenter, took his own life in 1998 after a five-year battle with his insurer to get medical benefits for his injured knee. "He was in constant pain and depressed because he couldn't take care of me and our daughter," she says. Two days after his death, she received word from the company that it had declared him permanently and totally disabled and awarded benefits. These days, medical costs, which held steady in the early 1990s, have started spiking again. And as in their lush years, workers-comp carriers have allowed claims-handling expenses to steadily increase while cutting rates too far to cover them, according to a 1999 report on the workers-comp industry by Conning & Co., the research firm. Employers are paying about 20 percent less than they should be, says Hartwig of the Insurance Information Institute. Insurance companies are again saying that unless something gives, premiums will rise. "Reform," says lobbyist Oxfeld, "is by no means at an end." Recommendations Workers deserve more help from the workers-compensation system than they're getting. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration should persist in its enforcement and regulatory efforts to make the workplace safer. The easiest way to keep workers-comp premiums and benefits low is to cut on-the-job accidents and illnesses. Congress should revive standards set by the National Commission on State Workmen's Compensation Laws, which, among other things, asked that benefit caps be raised to 100 percent of each state's average weekly wage. States should audit their workers-comp systems to see whether they're too restrictive. States should also tighten deadlines for decisions and fine parties that delay, to discourage "starve out" tactics. Workers who receive good prompt treatment are less likely to be permanently impaired. Workers should contact their state labor department to see if their employers have workers-compensation insurance, if there's any doubt. When considering a job, they should ask if the company offers group private long-term disability insurance. Consumers can also buy long-term disability insurance on their own. If you become injured on the job, immediately report the circumstances and date in writing to your employer and get a receipt. For more information on workers comp, visit www.aflcio.org/safety/comp.htm. • How believable are claims? • A look at reform laws Who gets injured and how. Workers in private industry reported 1.8 million injuries and illnesses that required time off work in 1997, the most recent year available. We list the most common injuries, and, based on 1998 data, some industries with relatively high rates per 100 full-time workers. Injuries and illnesses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Injury and illness rates by industry -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sprains, strains 43.6 % Air transportation 8.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bruises -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aluminum foundries -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cuts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Concrete block and brick -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fractures -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prepared flour mixes and doughs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Multiple traumatic injuries -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bottled and canned soft drinks -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heat burns -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commercial laundry equipment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carpal tunnel syndrome -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Logging -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tendinitis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Truck and bus body work -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chemical burns -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prefabricated wood buildings -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amputations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shipbuilding and repair -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24.8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 2000 http://www.consumerreports.org/Special/ConsumerInterest/Reports/0002wor0.htm |
| Quackslayer |
Lawsuit against Parthenia for Fraud! (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 13:37:46 04/10/2001 Federal Buiilding and US Courthouse 222 West Seventh Avenue, Anchorage Alaska, 99513 98-35757 Jorge Fisher v. Parthenia Medical Group, Inc. |
| Name: | |
| E-Mail: | |
| Subject: |
This message board has been closed in regard to posting new messages and follow-ups although pages can be viewed. Page loading time had become excessive. Please use the "Message Forum" link from our Main Page here to contribute to our new and improved forum.