A PUBLICATION BY THE LAW FIRM OF

Clifton, Mueller & Bovarnick, P.C.

---

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2006

FEBRUARY & MARCH

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: BILL ALLOWING CLAIMANTS TO SELECT TREATING PHYSICIAN DEFEATED

On February 13, 2006, lawmakers voted down House Bill 1097 that would have given claimants a right to a one-time change of doctors after 60 days. Under the current system, the employer selects the physician but workers have a right to request a change of physician.  The request must be denied within twenty days or it is deemed approved.

  Business groups and employers were among those who testified in opposition to

We strive to provide excellent legal services to our clients.  Unfortunately, that goal cannot be met if we do not have all information at our disposal prior to procedural  deadlines.  Not only does having all available information help us to zealously represent our clients but it also helps our clients avoid penalties.  The sooner we can right a wrong or meet an approaching deadline, the less exposure our clients have for penalties.

  As an example, a file was recently referred to the firm for defense.  The file that was sent had no apparent deadlines.  However, on investigation, we learned a hearing had been scheduled, indicating an application for hearing was pending.

  Another reason to timely submit files is that under the new rules that went into

the bill, saying it would increase costs and not improve care.  According Lee Ziegler, workers’ compensation claims manager for Safeway, it has been that company’s experience that in cases where the employee selects his or her physician, his length of time off work increases, and there is a significant increase in employees who never come back to work.

  According to a study by the National Council on Compensation Insurance,

overall costs in the workers’ compensation system in Colorado would have increased up to 2 percent, or by $23 million, had HB 1097 passed.  The estimate was based in part on a study by the Workers Compensation Research Institute that showed when employees choose their own physicians, medical costs increase 7 percent to 10 percent.

effect January 1, 2006, every time an application for hearing is filed, in order to have 30 days beyond the setting date to file a response, an entry of appearance needs to be filed before the setting date.  If we do not receive a file until after the setting date or on the setting date, it is too late to file an entry of appearance, our response is late, and we may be barred from calling any witnesses or endorsing any issues.

  It is essential not only that our adjusters send us the ENTIRE file so that appropriate defenses can be raised, but it is equally important that they send us the file IMMEDIATELY upon receipt of an application for hearing or the same day as an issue arises so that deadlines can be met and penalties can be avoided.

Avoid Costly Penalties and Potentially Devastating Results; Send Entire File in a Timely Manner

By Holly M. Barrett

By Interpretive Bulletin 11A, the Division provides guidance on the issue of follow-up DIMEs.  In the Stefanski and Williams’ cases, the Court of Appeals reached differing conclusions on the procedure to be followed where a DIME concludes a claimant is not at MMI and the ATP later again places the claimant at MMI.  The DOWC indicates that in this situation, the parties should attempt to reach an agree-ment on how to proceed.  If an agreement cannot be reached, “the better course of action is to return the claimant to the

FOLLOW-UP DIMES – NEW DOWC INTERPRETATION