10-14-11; There is a new policy from CMS addressing liability MSAs and it mirrors advise we have been giving for some time now. And in other news, the MSPRC Self Service Information Service is up...

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has released a policy memorandum (dated September 29, 2011) pertaining to liability Medicare set-aside (L-MSA) arrangements. CMS has indicated the new guidelines and procedures are effective “upon publication of this memorandum” so they are already applicable, folks.

Per CMS, the memo provides information regarding proposed Liability Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (L-MSA) amounts related to liability insurance (including self-insurance) settlements, judgments, awards, or other payments (which they note as “settlements”). Through this memo, CMS indicates they will consider Medicare’s interests regarding future medicals to be “satisfied” upon procurement of specific information from the plaintiff’s treating physician as follows:

Where the beneficiary’s treating physician certifies in writing that treatment for the alleged injury related to the liability insurance (including self-insurance) ‘settlement’ has been completed as of the date of the ‘settlement,’ and that future medical items and/or services for that injury will not be required, Medicare considers its interest, with respect to future medicals for that particular ‘settlement,’ satisfied. If the beneficiary receives additional ‘settlements’ related to the underlying injury or illness, he/she must obtain a separate physician certification for those additional ‘settlements.

If the physician certification as referenced above is obtained, according to CMS you do not need to submit the certification or any proposed L-MSA to be reviewed. In keeping with their tradition of refusing to provide any parties with significant confirmation that they have made appropriate efforts, CMS will not provide the parties with any type of confirmation indicating Medicare’s interest regarding future medicals is satisfied and instead they strongly suggest plaintiffs and/or their representative maintain the physician’s certification.

To obtain a copy of CMS’ September 29, 2011 memo, please email Shawn R Biery at sbiery@keefe-law.com.

AND

In other CMS news, you can now attempt to contact CMS to determine conditional payments if you have the necessary information and use an automated service. It appears to be working as long as you have all of the necessary info. The MSPRC phone number is the same, (866)677-7220, but now it gives you the option to use the automated service or to speak to an associate. 

To use the automated service, you will need to have the following information:

  • Case Identification Number (as found on the Rights and Responsibilities letter)
  • Date of Loss
  • Beneficiary's Date of Birth
  • Last four digits of the SSN
  • First four digits of beneficiary's last name
  • Medicare Number

After receiving the status on a file, it will ask if you want to search for another case or speak to an associate. Remember, to speak to an associate, there will be an extended hold time (with Shawn’s personal best being over 70 minutes). For more information on the MSP automated response feature, go to www.msprc.info .

Our law partner, Shawn R. Biery, J.D. holds the M.S.S.C. certification and has presented opinions in seminars throughout the U.S. If you have had the pleasure of working with him in the past, you know that he has been advocating for obtaining confirmation of “no further treatment” from treating physicians for an extended period already. If you have questions or concerns about such issues, please feel free to contact Shawn at sbiery@keefe-law.com.

10-14-11; Are Some Illinois Governments in a Death Spiral and We Don’t See It? The Shocking Story of the IL Firefighter with a Runny Nose and Watery Eyes

Illinois government is something of a smoking mess on a lot of levels. Right now, estimates are

·         The State of IL is running an $8.3 billion dollar deficit by the end of the next fiscal year, ending June 30, 2012. That deficit is in spite of billions received from the recent income tax increases!  http://www.civicfed.org/sites/default/files/State%20of%20Illinois%20Enacted%20Budget%20FY2012.pdf

·         The City of Chicago is running a deficit of over $600 million, based on an overall budget of $3.2 billion. The City’s deficit is projected to be $800 million within two years.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-29/chicago-s-budget-deficit-widens-50-million-to-635-7-million-mayor-says.html

·         The Chicago Public Schools have a deficit separate from the City of Chicago expected to be $720 million. http://www.suntimes.com/news/4470528-460/chicago-public-schools-deficit-up-to-720-million.html

·         The Chicago Transit Authority has a deficit expected to be $277 million dollars. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/cta-chief-agency-faces-27_n_994708.html

One reason we see for all these depressing deficits are pensions, benefits and basically entitlements. We keep seeing new and unprecedented ways for workers to get government money. We are confident our legislators and administrators have no idea what the cost is to the taxpayers. We are certain lots of free chickens being given to workers in some quarters are coming home to bust budgets.

We recently saw a claim for an Illinois firefighter we consider difficult to read. In Richter v. Village of Oak Brook, (No. 2-10-0114, opinion filed September 23, 2011) claimant was a firefighter who suffered from rhinitis. If you aren’t sure, rhinitis, commonly known as a stuffy nose, is the medical term describing irritation and inflammation of some internal areas of the nose. The primary symptom of rhinitis is nasal dripping. It is caused by chronic or acute inflammation of the mucous membrane of the nose due to viruses, bacteria or irritants.

The problem with rhinitis involving a firefighter is claimant could no longer continue as a firefighter—he became sensitive to dust and smoke. It appears clear he could work and be truly functional in lots of other jobs but he simply wasn’t cut out for fighting fires. In lots of other states, that wouldn’t be a problem.

In Illinois, when a firefighter or police officer develops a work-related condition or suffers an injury which means they can’t do police or fire work, we have a legal concept which allows them to claim they are “catastrophically injured.” For the uninitiated, this is a legal theory which simply means the worker can’t be a firefighter or police officer. Once they are found to be injured and can’t do their jobs, thereafter taxpayers have to pay for lifetime line-of-duty disability pensions at 65% of their highest salary on a tax-free basis. As the average Illinois firefighter makes $52,000 a year, claimant would get about $33,800 on a tax-free basis for life. If he is a 30-year-old with a 47-year life expectancy, that cost to the Village is $1,588,600.00. In our view, that is a lot of money for a runny nose and watery eyes.

Please remember the government largesse doesn’t mean they can’t perform any work or are what your mom and dad might think is catastrophically injured. They can work at normal jobs and still get the pension money. Basically, the Illinois legislature has never studied what it costs municipalities to provide all these benefits, even when lots of firefighters and police officers continue to get their pensions while they work at normal daily jobs and make a tidy post-government living.

In Richter, what is even more shocking is claimant asserted he had shoulder pain while fighting a fire. Fighting any fire is, by legal definition, considered an emergency. The Village settled all his WC claims together for the rhinitis and the shoulder problem. By so doing, the Appellate Court found claimant was not only entitled to a line-of-duty disability pension, on top of that, he was additionally entitled to lifetime family medical healthcare coverage. If you aren’t sure, a new study out today by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group that tracks employer-sponsored health insurance, shows the average annual premium for family coverage through an employer topped $15,000 in 2011. For a thirty-year-old firefighter with a 47-year life expectancy, that lifetime cost is $705,000. That number assumes the cost of family health coverage doesn’t go up. If health care coverage costs continue to surge, the expected cost to the Village of Oak Brook over the years may be $2-3 million dollars. Please be sure to notice these payments do not mean claimant cannot return to work and make a nice living on top of what he receives from the Village.

Please note we aren’t criticizing the Appellate Court ruling which basically followed Illinois law. Our problem is the whole system of entitlements that has no built-in cost controls and is lurching along without anyone watching the nickels and dimes. Someone in the Governor’s office, legislature or courts has got to wake up and smell the coffee and stop giving millions for runny noses.

We assert many government benefits sound simple and justified. We want firefighters and police officers to be taken care of when they suffer unforeseen and truly crippling or catastrophic injuries, particularly when working and endangering themselves in emergency settings to save innocent folks. However, when a firefighter with a runny nose and watery eyes costs taxpayers millions of dollars, it is not hard to understand why we are facing monster budget deficits and our readers have concerns about sustainability. We don’t want more anti-business taxes and increased tolls and fees to pay for things like this.

We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please do not hesitate to post them on our award-winning blog. If you want a copy of the Appellate Court’s ruling, send a reply.

10-4-11; Ooops. We missed something last week

Editor’s comment: You may have read last week’s article about an appellate court ruling in the case of Rose v. The Board of Trustees of the Mount Prospect Police Pension Fund, No. 1-10-2157 (September 15, 2011). When we published the article, the writer and your editor weren’t immediately aware our office represented Officer Rose's employer, the Village of Mt. Prospect, in the companion workers' compensation claim. Having published the article, your editor learned of our handling and we note the companion work comp claim was based upon the same set of facts that gave rise to the line-of-duty disability pension claim.

In the memorable words of Justice Brandeis as quoted by venerable opposing counsel in the WC claim, “sunshine is the best disinfectant.” Full disclosure has to be more than an afterthought. Both the author of the article and your editor intended to state our reasoned legal opinions about a reported decision, even though such views may be potentially controversial. As our firm and/or our client have a direct interest in the outcome of the case, disclosure of that interest to our readers is appropriate.

We assure all of our readers it was only our intention to report the news about an important appellate ruling and not to influence the fairness of the companion proceeding or the hearing officer currently handling it. If you have thoughts or comments, please reply or post them on our blog.