A PUBLICATION BY THE LAW FIRM OF

Clifton, Mueller & Bovarnick, P.C.

---

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2006

JANUARY

Practice Pointer

Power of Rule 5-4

By James R. Clifton

 

 

   The Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel has elected Jim Clifton as a member. 

   The Federation’s membership consists of defense lawyers, insurance industry representatives, corporate counsel and corporate executives with national or regional responsibility for the defense of claims in litigation. 

   The organization has a membership limitation of 1000 attorneys in private practice in the United States.

   Jim was elected into the membership after being nominated by two current members and after an investigation of his professional background that included interviews of clients, opposing attorneys and judges.

   The semi-annual meetings of the FDCC include continuing legal education programs.  The organization publishes a quarterly law review and sponsors programs for claims professionals.

   The revised and renumbered Workers’ Compensation Rules of Procedure provide the claims administrator with a new tool to investigate and evaluate a claim.  Rule 5-4 (C) provides that a party shall have fifteen days from the date of mailing to complete, sign and return a release of medical and/or other relevant information and, if requested, a list of the names and addresses of healthcare providers reasonably necessary to evaluate and adjust the claim, along with the signed releases. 

   The rule further states that medical information from healthcare providers who treated the parts of the body, or conditions alleged by the claimant to be related to the claim, for a five year period before the date of injury and thereafter will be considered reasonable.

   Compliance with the rule is mandatory.  Under prior rules, the signed releases were mandatory, but providing the list of healthcare providers was not.  As a result, under the prior rules claimants and their

attorneys would routinely ignore the request for the list of healthcare providers, and often such information was not obtained until the respondents’ attorney sent formal discovery to the claimant. 

   This change in the rule means that a claims administrator can obtain pertinent information about the claimant’s prior medical treatment without the necessity of having a defense attorney retained on the case.  If a claimant fails to provide the list of requested providers, the claimant will be in violation of the mandatory rule and subject to a claim of penalties.

   The new rule further states that the request for releases and disclosures necessary to adjust the claim is not considered discovery.  We recommend that you automatically send the request for signed releases and disclosure of the healthcare providers at the onset of every case.  If you would like assistance in preparing a form letter, please call on any one of the attorneys in our firm.

Clifton Elected

to

FDCC Membership

Appeals Court Disagrees with Prior Decision Regarding DIME

Williams v. ICAO, 04CA2192

(January 12, 2006)

   The Court of Appeals (CA), in a split decision, stated it disagreed with its previ-ous decision in Stefanski v. ICAO, decided just four months earlier, regarding the re-quirement to request a DIME within 30 days of the Final Admission.   In reaching a different conclusion after interpreting C.R.S. 8-42-107.2, the CA found the appli-

cation of the statute was not limited solely to first-time requests for a DIME.

   In 1996, Claimant suffered a back injury.  After receiving treatment for several months, an authorized treating physician (ATP) placed Claimant at MMI and as-signed a 24% rating.  Thereafter, Claimant was incarcerated.  In 2000, Claimant was released from prison and underwent a DIME, which concluded Claimant was no

longer at MMI.  The claim was reopened and in 2002, an ATP again placed Claimant at MMI and assigned a 24% rating.  Respondents filed a Final Admission.  Claimant objected but did not request another DIME within 30 days. 

   The CA disagreed with Claimant’s argu-ment the 30-day time limit of C.R.S. 8-42-107.2 only applied to a first-time request

Continued on Page 2, see Conflict