9-27-11; The lawyers, adjusters and WC claims managers in the various WC systems across the U.S. are all setting up literally thousands of Medicare Set-Aside Trusts, as part of the ongoing...

In our humble view, the answer is “no one knows.” You may note below, if a claimant dies, the trust money is to be ‘disbursed pursuant to state law.’ We have no clear idea what that might mean but assume the trust money may be an asset in claimant’s estate. We are aware some carriers are trying to have reverter clauses in the trusts to have the money revert back if unused for the reasons intended. That isn’t common and to our knowledge, the concept hasn’t been tested in the courts in Illinois, Wisconsin or Indiana where we practice. It also requires continuing audits of injured claimants for years and possibly decades.

 

It appears there is a process that may allow the money to be spent for other purposes, after five years and under very limited circumstances. We are fairly confident the CMS claims folks aren’t going to want thousands of “can we have the money” applications from all the claimants. Whatever happens, we assure all attorneys you don’t want to “mess with CMS” and should follow the law closely.

 

From the CMS web site:

v  Beneficiaries that Request Termination of a WCMSA Account (Ref: 7/11/05 Memo Q10)

The administrator of the CMS-approved WCMSA should not release set-aside funds for any purpose other than the purpose for which the WCMSA was established without review from CMS. However, if the treating physician concludes that the claimant's medical condition has substantially improved, then the claimant (or the claimant's representative) may submit a new WCMSA proposal covering future expected medical expenses. Such proposals must justify at least a 25% reduction in the outstanding WCMSA funds. In addition, such proposal may not be submitted until at least five years after a previous CMS approval letter and should be accompanied by all supporting documentation not previously submitted with the original WCMSA proposal. The CMS decision on the new proposal is final and not subject to administrative appeal. The above proposals shall be submitted to:

CMS
c/o Coordination of Benefits Contractor
P.O. Box 33849
Detroit, MI 48232-5849
Attention: WCMSA Proposal

If CMS determines that a 25% or greater reduction is justified, CMS will issue a new approval letter. After CMS issues a new approval letter, any funds in the current WCMSA in excess of the newly calculated amount may be released to the claimant. Effective August 25, 2008, the July 11, 2005 memorandum at Question and Answer 10, entitled "Beneficiaries that Request Termination of a WCMSA Account," is rescinded.

What do you do if the money is sitting there and claimant passes?

v  Death of a Claimant Prior to Exhaustion of the Medicare Set-Aside Money (Ref: 4/21/03 Memo Q21)

Once the Regional Office (RO) and the contractor responsible for monitoring the claimant's case verify that all of the claimant's claims have been paid, then any amount left over in the claimant's WCMSA may be disbursed pursuant to State law. This may involve holding the WCMSA open for some period after the date of death, as providers, physicians, and other suppliers are permitted to submit their initial bill to Medicare for a period ranging from 15-27 months after the date of service.

If you have questions or concerns, Shawn R. Biery, J.D. has the M.S.S.C. certification and is available by email at sbiery@keefe-law.com.

9-19-11; Choice of law--Da Bears win and Da Players lose in a legal battle over where WC claims will be adjudicated and paid—Federal Court rules the team will owe Illinois and not California WC...

On a preliminary basis, we first want our readers to understand workers’ compensation benefits are not designed to be exclusive—one can receive WC benefits on a concurrent basis from two or more states. It is also possible to receive state and federal WC benefits at the same time. This ruling doesn’t really appear to address that potential.

In order to receive concurrent benefits from different WC systems, you have to qualify under the rules of each system. For example, one could be hired in IL and injured in Indiana—if each respective state provides benefits due to the site of being hired and the site of the work injury, the employer would owe benefits from each state with a credit being afforded for anything paid. Basically, the injured worker gets the highest possible deal.

In the ruling analyzed below we do not note either the labor arbitrator of the U.S. District Court judge considered the three major factors in determining which state’s law might apply—site of the injury, state of hire or place where most of the work was performed. We are not aware of prior rulings where contract language overrode the applicability of state workers’ comp legislation. As WC law professors, we remain uncomfortable with this ruling—we don’t feel it follows traditional precepts of WC law because we don’t feel you can contract away such rights. We caution Illinois risk managers and claims handlers, we don’t feel an Illinois employers can create a contract to force Illinois workers to accept WC benefits from states outside Illinois if they are injured working in Illinois. In this ruling, the Chicago Bears Football Club was able to strip the workers’ rights to bring a WC claim in California—we aren’t California lawyers and don’t know how a California hearing officer would rule on the issue. We are fairly sure the IL Workers’ Compensation Commission wouldn’t follow such a contract proviso.

Either way, three former Chicago Bears players have lost a bid to pursue workers' compensation claims in California. U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo on Tuesday confirmed an arbitrator's decision requiring Michael Haynes, Joe Odom and Cameron Worrell to take their claims to the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission.

Judge Bucklo agreed with a labor arbitrator who ruled the former players violated their contracts with the Bears by seeking workers' compensation benefits in California. The labor arbitrator based her decision on provisions in the contracts that require any WC claims for benefits be decided in Illinois under Illinois law. Judge Bucklo also said she was required to accept the labor arbitrator’s interpretation of the players' contracts with the Bears, as well as her legal and factual conclusions. She felt the legal standard for vacating an arbitrator's award was very high. Judge Bucklo said a party must show that the award is counter to well-defined public policy as determined by specific statutes and legal precedents.

District Court Judge Bucklo noted the players argument was the labor arbitrator's decision was contrary to California public policy. She conceded judges have more leeway to overturn a labor arbitrator's award when it runs counter to public policy. But Bucklo indicated said she did not understand — and neither the players nor the Bears explained — how or why the public policy of California was relevant to the case. The players did not dispute Illinois law governed the formation and interpretation of their contracts with the Bears. She said the players also did not dispute that the Bears are located in Chicago and that they performed the contracts in Illinois. And the former players did not dispute they and the Bears negotiated the contract provisions calling for disputes to be decided in Illinois under Illinois law.

The name of the claim is The Chicago Bears Football Club Inc., et al. v. Michael Haynes, et al. No. 11 C 2668. We appreciate your thoughts and comments.

9-19-11; The Biggest of the Big U.S. WC Insurers

Business Insurance magazine recently published this list of the U.S. 20 largest workers comp insurers ranked by premium volume.

 

The number to the right of the company name below represents the insurers' 2010 direct WC premiums written in billions of dollars.

 

1.    Liberty Mutual Insurance. $4.1

2.    American International Group a/k/a Chartis $3.6

3.    Travelers Companies $2.8

4.    Hartford Financial Services $2.6

5.    Zurich Financial Services Ltd $2.4

6.    The New York State Insurance Fund for Workers' Compensation $1.3

7.    The California State Compensation Insurance Fund $1.1

8.    ACE Ltd. $1.1

9.    Old Republic International $0.9

10.  CNA Financial Corp. $0.8

11.  Accident Fund Group $0.7

12.  Chubb Corp. $0.7

13.  W.R. Berkley Corp. $0.7

14.  Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd $0.6

15.  Texas Mutual Insurance Co. $0.6

16.  Berkshire Hathaway Inc. $0.5

17.  AmTrust Financial Services Inc $0.5

18.  New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co. $0.4

19.  Pinnacol Assurance $0.3

20.  SAIF Corp. $0.3