Author: WorkCompAcademy

Individuals living in disadvantaged neighborhoods have worse musculoskeletal pain outcomes over time after stressful events such as motor vehicle collision than individuals from higher socioeconomic status neighborhoods, even after accounting for individual characteristics such as age, sex, income, education, and employment status. Since apportionment under SB 899 is based upon “causation”, medical evaluators may wish to consider this study when determining the actual cause behind an the AMA Guides pain add-on rating.

According to the summary by the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, individuals living in disadvantaged neighborhoods have worse musculoskeletal pain outcomes over time after stressful events such as motor vehicle collision than individuals from higher socioeconomic status neighborhoods, even after accounting for individual characteristics such as age, sex, income, education, and employment status.

These were the findings of a multi-site research study led by Samuel McLean, MD, MPH, associate professor of anesthesiology and emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. The results of the study were published online by the journal Pain. “We all like to believe that we are immune to the circumstances of our environment,” said Dr. McLean. “These results suggest that when it comes to chronic musculoskeletal pain development after traumatic/stressful events, the poet John Donne was right ” ‘No man is an island.’ “

The investigators enrolled 948 European-American individuals who presented to emergency care centers in four U.S. states for evaluation after car accidents. Patients were enrolled at the time of their presentation for emergency care, and then received follow-up evaluation at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. Approximately 90 percent of participants completed follow up at each time point.

Information regarding each study participant’s neighborhood environment was determined by geocoding their home address to a “census tract.” A census tract is the smallest territorial unit for which population data are available in the U.S. Census tract data was then used to determine neighborhood socioeconomic status using the Socioeconomic Position Index. This index generates a total score by averaging scores of the following measures: percent unemployed, percent below the U.S. poverty line, percent with high school education or less, percent of expensive homes (owner-occupied homes worth $300,000 or more) in the neighborhood, and median household income.

After adjusting for individual-level factors including participant sex, age, highest level of educational attainment, family income, and employment status, living in a more disadvantaged area was found to increase pain burden in the months after the car accident. Results remained significant after adjustment for receiving opioids at the time of emergency care, litigation status, obesity (body mass index), at-risk drinking habits prior to the accident, and mental health status prior to the accident.

There are many ways that living in a poor neighborhood might increase pain across time after a car accident. One potential factor is that living in a disadvantaged neighborhood increases stress and has been shown to affect the function of an individual’s stress (i.e., “fight or flight”) system. To test this hypothesis, the investigators collected blood samples from participants, and evaluated whether those participants with a common genetic variant which makes one more vulnerable to stress were more affected by the adverse effect on pain of living in a disadvantaged environment. The investigators found that this was the case: those without the genetic variant were relatively unaffected, whereas those with the gene had large and clinically significant differences in pain outcomes depending on their neighborhood environment.

“This finding suggests that the increased stress of living in a disadvantaged neighborhood affects biological systems in the body in ways that increase pain and worsen pain outcomes,” said Dr. McLean. “These results also add further evidence that stress systems are involved in the development of chronic pain. This is really important, because we have to understand the biology in order to be able to develop better preventive interventions.”

First author of the study is Jacob Ulirsch, BS, a former collaborator in Dr. McLean’s lab. UNC co-authors include Mark A. Weaver, PhD, research assistant professor in the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health; and Andrey V. Bortsov, research assistant professor in the UNC Department of Anesthesiology. This research was supported by a grant R01 AR056328 from the National Institutes of Health.

Workers’ compensation costs continue to rise as the City of Santa Monica spent $6.9 million on injured employees in fiscal year 2013-14. Costs grew 12 percent, or $850,000, over the previous year, according to city risk managers. According to the report in the Santa Monica Daily Press, claim frequency remains high and older city employees in physically demanding jobs are experiencing more severe injuries. These older employees are requiring costly and intensive medical treatment, like back surgeries and knee replacements. Even city officials tasked with handling these matters are having medical problems: Two employees in the Workers’ Compensation Unit were out on extended (non-industrial) medical leave.

“Relative to indemnity payments, the Workers’ Compensation Reform legislation enacted by the State in 2012 increased the permanent disability benefit payment schedule by 30 (percent) over a two year period,” city officials said. Most of the administrative costs stayed the same, with the exception of legal costs, which rose 11 percent. If the worker hires legal representation, city officials said, they are, in turn, required to hire one.

Medical costs made up $3.6 million worth of total costs. Lost wages and residual impacts from injuries comprised another $3.3 million. Of the latter category, about half, $1.6 million, covered temporary disabilities while the other half, about $1.7 million, covered permanent disabilities. There were 86 claims settled last fiscal year compared to 55 settlements in the year before. “The City is controlling what it can,” the report said. “These efforts, however, are not sufficient to offset the financial impact of the internal/external factors dogging the program. Given this, Risk Management staff expects the City’s workers’ compensation costs to continue to rise. There are no ‘magic bullets’ to reverse this trend in the short-term, and as such, the City can expect to increase its contribution to the Workers’ Compensation Self Insurance Fund during the next two-year budget cycle.”

The rising costs, city officials said, are not going to disappear. “Staff predicts this trend will continue into the next two-year budget cycle and result in higher contributions to the Workers’ Compensation Self Insurance Fund,” they said. City officials have, they said, saved some money by making some changes. They are, for instance, returning injured employees to modified positions while they recover. This program saved nearly a quarter million dollars according to the report. “The City also revamped the medical bill review process and selected a new medical bill review provider this past year,” city officials said. “The new provider enables the City to obtain better pricing on medical procedures through accessing more cost-effective insurance plans.” This move saved between $100,000 and $200,000 according to city officials.

Alan Moelleken, M. D., a member of the State Fund’s MPN, recommended that applicant, Rochelle Stock, be furnished with a hospital bed for her home as treatment for her admitted 1990 injury. The request was denied after a 5/13/2014 review by Daniel Weinberg, M. D./ EK Health, the State Fund’s Utilization Review report. At a hearing brought to obtain this recommended care, Stock objected to the admission of the UR report claiming it was “inadmissible because the treatment denied was recommended by a physician in defendant’s Medical Provider Network.” The WCJ ruled the UR report was admissible and denied the request for this medical treatment in a June 20, 2014 Finding and Award.

Applicant filed a petition for reconsideration. The WCAB dismissed the petition for reconsideration, since the WCJ’s determination was not a final order subject to reconsideration. Instead it treated applicant’s petition as seeking removal to the Appeals Board. After removal the WCAB affirmed the WCJ’s Findings and Award in the panel decision of Stock v Camarillo State Hospital.

The WCAB concurred with the WCJ that applicant’s required participation in her employer’s MPN does not prohibit defendant from referring an MPN physician’s request for authorization of medical treatment to UR and Independent Medical Review. Contrary to applicant’s contentions, by its adoption of the MPN system, the Legislature did not evince an intent to preclude a defendant from seeking UR review of an MPN physician’s request for authorization of medical treatment. The law and the implementing administrative rules provide mechanisms for review of disputed treatment recommendations through UR, whether or not the treating physician is in the employer’s MPN. Both the UR provisions and the MPN provisions of the Labor Code provide that a treating physician’s request for authorization of medical treatment must be reviewed by a physician competent to evaluate the specific clinical issues, without distinction as to whether the physician is selected through the MPN. (Cf. Labor Code section 461 O(e) and Labor Code section 20 46 I 6(f).) Similarly, the definition of a primary treating physician in Administrative Director’s Rule 9767.1 and Rule 9785(a)(J) both include a physician within an MPN.

When a defendant does not approve a treatment request from applicant’s primary treating physician, the defendant must refer the request to a UR physician. Here, Dr. Moelleken’s request that applicant be provided a hospital bed was clearly intended to provide applicant relief from the effects of her industrial injury under the terms of her award of further medical treatment. She has had a two level lumbar fusion, suffers from radiculopathy, Grade 2 spondylolisthesis with instability and foraminal stenosis at two levels above the fusion. Applicant cannot sleep on a flat bed and has been sleeping in a recliner. She has been trying to obtain a hospital bed for four years. In all of that time, she has not been able to enjoy a restful night sleep.

The UR denial of the request for a hospital bed was based upon “silence” in the MTUS guidelines, and the absence of “high quality studies” and “no exceptional factors … in the documentation submitted to consider this request as an outlier to the guidelines. There is no other documentation to support the medical necessity of a hospital bed. As such, the medical necessity of the request has not been established and the request is non-certified.”

The WCAB noted that there is a hierarchy of standards to be applied to a review of the medical necessity of a request for approval of medical treatment, under Rule 9792.10.1 ( 4)(A)-(F). If the MTUS is “silent,” and there is no “peer-reviewed scientific and medical evidence,” the reviewer may consider nationally recognized professional standards, expert opinion, generally accepted standards of medical practice and “treatments that are likely to provide a benefit to a patient for conditions for which other treatments are not clinically efficacious.” It does not appear that the UR denial considered whether other standards may be applicable, as there was insufficient documentation or explanation provided to support the efficaciousness of Dr. Moelleken’s request. Further review of this request will be by Independent Medical Review.

Southern California Public Radio – KPCC – reviewed hundreds of Probation Department workers’ compensation files from 2010-2012 and claims it found dozens of questionable cases. Chief Probation Officer Jerry Powers responded by stressing that the vast majority of workers’ compensation claims are legitimate, but he has taken several steps to crack down on questionable injuries since taking office in 2011. Since then, the number of probation staff on disability has dropped by one third, Powers says. Questionable workers’ compensation and disability claims, he says, were one of the first things the L.A. County Board of Supervisors asked him to tackle when he came to probation.

When Powers started on the job, 15 percent of the workforce–about 750 people–were out on workers’ compensation or reassigned due to on-the-job injuries, he says. “It makes my blood boil.” Powers maintains the problem of fraudulent claims is “epidemic” in the department–although officials there say they don’t have hard numbers on the percentage of claims believed to be illegitimate. Cynthia Maluto, who oversees return to work efforts at probation says “I’ve looked up cases where the employee will be off a whole year, come back for one day and then go off another year and come back, file another claim, [and] could be off for two years. And in the 20 years of service they probably worked three months.”

To tackle the problem, the supervisors ordered Powers to use an investigative model first developed by the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department. First, he beefed up the unit that investigates claims. He told the team to “start scrutinizing doctors’ notes, questioning restrictions and limitations and frankly, if necessary, videotaping staff doing things they say they can’t,” Powers recalls. “Before I got here, when employees were injured they could take cruises, they could come and go as they pleased,” he says. “We put in a requirement they have to be home between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.” Probation now has a dedicated team checking up on employees who are out on workers’ compensation and disability claims. The team makes home visits to make sure employees are there when they should be. It follows up on claims it considers questionable, and can mount challenges based on its investigations.

Alex Rossi of the L.A. County CEO’s office says the number of claims skyrocketed after 2000, when probation officers became eligible for 4850–a law designed to counterbalance the risk of working in public safety with up to one year of full, tax-free salary while on workers’ compensation leave.

Union steward Cline says Powers’ move to crack down on workers who are faking injuries is more about politics than tackling a major departmental problem. Many workers stay out for long stretches simply waiting to get care within the slow-moving workers’ compensation system, Cline says. “I see those cases more than I see the others,” she adds. But the probation department’s management sees qualified success in the crackdown– Powers says since he took office, the number of employees out on workers’ compensation has gone down by roughly one third, from about 750 to about 500. And he says the number of 4850 cases has dropped by 25 percent.

When it comes to gaming the system, probation chief Powers says one of his biggest problems is staff taking out separate private disability policies. “Several times we’ve found employees who will falsify medical notes and send them to these insurance companies and tell them they are injured and off duty for months at a time,” he says. The problem, says Powers, is that “they are not off duty. They are drawing a paycheck at the same time they are collecting a check from these insurance companies. And some of these employees will have two, three, four separate policies.” This can be lucrative, with workers doubling or tripling their salaries, according to Powers. “We know everyone who has those policies and we are working with the insurance companies to cross check those policies,” he says. That cooperation has resulted in the arrests of two probation workers for allegedly collecting disability checks while they were still on the job, Powers says.

In September 2006, Massoud Kaabinejadian filed a workers’ compensation claim – based on work-related stress and discrimination – which was ultimately denied because his length of employment was only 177 days and less than the six months required by the Labor Code. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3, subd. (d).) Kathaleen Miller served as opposing counsel, representing Rabobank, his employer, and its workers’ compensation insurer. On behalf of her clients, Miller contended Kaabinejadian was properly terminated for aggression toward coworkers and creating a hostile work environment. Miller served a medical record subpoena on Kaabinejadian’s medical provider seeking information about his alleged injuries. After his claim was denied, Miller also prepared and filed a response to his WCAB petition for reconsideration.

In May 2012, Kaabinejadian filed a civil complaint for abuse of process and breach of privacy against Miller. For the first cause of action, he alleged that Miller’s answer to his petition for reconsideration falsely stated that plaintiff had tried to assault a witness, Cheryl Walker, during the workers’ compensation hearing on May 18, 2011. Plaintiff asserted that Miller had made the statements in the answer to retaliate against him. For the second cause of action, plaintiff alleged that Miller had wrongfully subpoenaed his medical records, again as retaliation.

In July 2012, Miller filed a special motion to strike the civil lawsuit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, asserting that Miller’s litigation conduct constituted participation in a protected activity and plaintiff could not demonstrate a probability of success because Miller’s conduct was subject to the litigation privilege afforded by Civil Code section 47 (“section 47”).

Miller submitted a declaration, describing the facts of her representation during the workers’ compensation proceeding – including that she had subpoenaed medical records from plaintiff’s treating physician and that she had witnessed plaintiff try to assault Walker, the human resources director for Rabobank. In her answer to plaintiff’s petition, Miller stated that plaintiff had demonstrated “anger and aggressive behavior” at the workers’ compensation hearing: “Following the conclusion of testimony by Cheryl Walker . . . the applicant sprang to his feet and attempted to assault the witness. But for the actions of Mr. Miguel Martinez (Pinkerton Consulting and Investigations) and Mr. Chris Solberg (California Highway Patrol), it appeared he would have physically assaulted Mrs. Walker. She fled the courtroom in tears sheltered by Mr. Martinez, while Officer Solberg confined the applicant to his chair.”

In his opposing declaration, plaintiff described Walker’s purported discriminatory treatment of him. He also set forth an account of the years spent litigating his workers’ compensation claim. He contended that Miller had obstructed his discovery efforts, mishandled his medical records, and interfered with his Independent Medical Examination (IME). Plaintiff made numerous efforts to have Miller held in contempt and sanctioned. Plaintiff vehemently disputed Miller’s account of his purported assault on Walker. He denied he was restrained, confined, admonished or criticized for his behavior at the hearing. The recorded minutes for the hearing contain no mention of the attempted assault. Plaintiff asserted that Officer Solberg was prepared to testify in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff also described his objections to Miller obtaining the records of his treating physician, Dr. Jeffrey Pearson, and disseminating them to non-medical personnel.

After a hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion based on a determination that Miller “had met her burden of showing that the activity alleged is protected under section 425.16” and that the litigation privilege (section 47) bars plaintiff’s claims. Kaabinejadian appealed the dismissal which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in the unpublished case of Kaabinejadian v Miller.

“A SLAPP suit – a strategic lawsuit against public participation – seeks to chill or punish a party’s exercise of constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.” (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1055.) Section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute, allows a party to bring a special motion to strike a meritless SLAPP suit at an early stage of the litigation. (Rusheen, at pp. 1055-1056; Dwight R. v. Christy B. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 697, 708-709 (Dwight R.).) The protected activities described in subdivision (e)(2) of section 425.16 include statements or writings made “in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a . . . judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law . . . .”

The activity underlying plaintiff’s complaint is Miller’s conduct as defense attorney in a workers’ compensation case. As such, plaintiff’s complaint is based on acts preparatory to or in anticipation of official proceedings. The Court concluded that “Miller’s actions were lawful and fully protected by the litigation privilege under section 47.”