Menu Close

Tag: 2017 News

New SB 1160 Rules Take Effect on March 26

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has adopted its final Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules) implementing Senate Bill 1160 (SB 1160).

The Office of Administrative Law has filed the WCAB’s new Rules with the Secretary of State. The new Rules will become effective on March 26, 2017.

Any lien claimant who filed a lien before January 1, 2017 that was subject to a filing fee under Labor Code section 4903.05 is required to file a “Supplemental Lien Form and 4903.05(c) Declaration” on the form approved by the Appeals Board before July 1, 2017.

The Appeals Board has already approved the Supplemental Lien Form and 4903.05(c) Declaration for use as an e-form and lien claimants can use that form now. Lien claimants may wish to file this form in advance of the adoption of the rule requiring it and will not have to re-file the form once the rule goes into effect.

The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) has posted frequently asked questions regarding the use of the lien form and Supplemental Lien Form and 4903.05(c) Declaration on its website.

As part of the regulatory process, the DWC held a public hearing on these proposed rules on January 4, and released a transcript of public comments made that day.

Steve Cattolica who represents the California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery, a couple other medical societies, as well as the California Workers’ Compensation Interpreters Association, and attorney Steve Rondeau who represents lien claimants both voiced concerns about retroactive requirements for lien documentation under the new rules. They said that some of the required information is not now available or known to the lien claimants since there was not previously a requirement that they collect this information.

Specifically they were concerned with the declaration requirement going forward under Labor Code Section 4903.05 ( c) ( 1) ( e). Lien claimants have to file a declaration under penalty of perjury stating that they have, documentation that treatment has been neglected or unreasonably refused and “many providers are having difficulty assembling this documentation.”

Pilar Garcia, the owner of Statewide Interpreters and Carolina Darond who works for the company both testified that the new requirements are running them out of the business after 19 years of providing interpreting services. Most their complains involve the inability to obtain pre-authorization for interpreting services from carriers and TPAs. Commissioner Sweeney probed their testimony and learned that most of their 315 interpreters are not certified as specified by SB 863.

Darond complained “It’s not fair whatever the rules are for interpreters. You’re putting it so difficult that we can’t do business anymore. And here comes — the other agencies are coming from the other states. Pilar was — it was the Statewide Interpreters for California back then. No, not anymore. Now we are requested by other agencies from the other states because they have the authorization. There’s no money difference between my rates and their rates. It’s the authorization what is changing the problem. They’re not giving it to us because they want to give it to One Call, and One Call is doing the monopoly of the business as you all — you all know that; right?”

The newly adopted Rules, and their related Final Statement of Reasons, are posted on the WCAB’s website.

DWC Requests Comments on MTUS Amendments

The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) will begin the process of amending the MTUS regulations by posting the proposed changes to its online forum.

This round of proposed regulatory amendments will be made pursuant to the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. These changes lay the foundation for the evidence-based guideline updates to the MTUS that for the first time will apply an expedited process pursuant to the recently amended Labor Code section 5307.27(a). Once the formal rulemaking process begins with these proposed regulatory amendments, DWC will begin the expedited process to update the evidence-based guidelines by Administrative Director order.

This round of proposed regulatory amendments makes the following changes:

– Deletes the distinction between the “Clinical Topics” section and “Special Topics” section and incorporates all of the treatment guidelines under a new section entitled “MTUS Treatment Guidelines”;
– Revises section numbers as a result of the deletion of the current “Special Topics” section;
– Deletes all of the guidelines under the “General Approaches,” “Clinical Topics” and “Special Topics” sections (All of these guidelines will be updated by an Administrative Director order);
– Adds a provision requiring any Medical Evidence Evaluation Advisory Committee (MEEAC) recommendations concerning the drug formulary be referred for consideration by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee;
– Provides non-substantive changes to the language to correct a spelling error, specify when the MTUS Treatment Guidelines are being referenced as opposed to the MTUS in general, and clarify how the MTUS’ presumption of correctness may be challenged.

The proposed amendments to the MTUS regulations start with section 9792.20 of title 8 of the California Code of Regulations.

Members of the public may review and comment on the proposed MTUS changes until 5 p.m. on March 10, 2017. They may also mail in-depth comments to: Division of Workers’ Compensation, P.O. Box 420603, San Francisco, CA 94142 – Attn: DWC forums.

DOJ Healthcare Fraud Lawyer Arrested by FBI

A Washington lawyer at a prominent firm was arrested in a disguise while trying to sell a copy of a secret lawsuit involving a company that was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department.

Jeffrey Wertkin was taken into custody in the lobby of the Hilton Garden Inn in Cupertino, California, where he believed he was about to collect $310,000 for selling a copy of the sealed whistle-blower lawsuit to the targeted company.

“My life is over,” Wertkin told the FBI agent. He was charged with Contempt of Court and Obstruction of Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3).

Attorney Wertkin had previously won a coveted job at the Justice Department in 2010. Working on cases related to health-care, he remained there until April 2016, when he left for a job at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP in Washington. His government pay was about $150,000 per year. At a firm like Akin Gump, where Wertkin defended companies sued under the whistle-blower law, attorneys with his credentials earn as much as $600,000.

Wertkin believed he would hand a copy of a sealed federal Qui Tam complaint to an employee of the company, which was accused in the complaint by a whistle-blower of falsely billing the government. The Qui Tam civil matter was previously filed under seal in January, 2016, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2) and pending before the Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley in the San Francisco division of the United States District Court in the Northern District of California. Wertkin, who was wearing a wig and using the name of Dan, was met instead by an FBI agent, according to arrest documents unsealed on Feb. 6.

Prosecutors say Jeffrey Wertkin attempted to sell a whistle-blower’s confidential lawsuit against a Silicon Valley company. FBI agents want to know whether Wertkin, who left the government in April, got the lawsuit from someone inside the Justice Department and if he sold other secrets while working there, according to two people familiar with the matter who weren’t authorized to discuss it publicly.

Wertkin, who appeared in San Francisco federal court Feb. 1, was released on $750,000 bail, which was secured by real estate in Washington, D.C., located on 12th Street, Northwest, according to court filings.

The case began with an employee at an unidentified technology security company in Sunnyvale, California, getting a voice mail on Nov. 30. The caller left a phone number and said a sealed False Claims Act lawsuit had been filed against the company, according to the FBI.

When the employee dialed the number, the caller identified himself as Dan and said he could provide a copy of the complaint for a “consulting fee,” the FBI said. He mailed a redacted copy of the cover page to the employee, who notified the FBI. The agency verified that the case has been pending since January 2016.

The employee agreed to secretly record calls to Dan for the FBI. On Dec. 22, Dan said he would provide the full complaint for $300,000, the FBI said. Two weeks later, Dan suggested he get paid in untraceable bitcoins, and said buying the complaint would help the company “get out ahead of the investigation.” The employee unsuccessfully sought to negotiate a cheaper price for the sealed lawsuit, according to the court filings.

On Jan. 19, Dan outlined to the employee his plan to meet on Jan. 31 near Sunnyvale, boosting his price to $310,000 to cover his travel expenses, according to the filings. Five days later, the employee said a colleague named Bill would meet him with the money in a hotel lobby. Dan wanted Bill’s cell phone number to text the location. That proved his undoing.

Bill turned out to be FBI agent William Scanlon. As he had agreed, Scanlon wore a gray Titleist hat and carried a blue duffel bag into the lobby of the Hilton Garden Inn. Dan texted him to find the empty chair in the lobby graced with a newspaper, according to the filings.

The case is U.S. v. Wertkin, 17-70131, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

WCAB Orders Electronic Out-of-State Testimony

The applicant Jaime Simmons, sustained injury on March 22, 2014 to his right foot and ankle while in the employment of defendant Just Wingin It, Inc. insured by Procentury Insurance Company.

The case was set for trio! to resolve the issue regarding how TI’D was paid to the applicant. After discussion with the parties at the MSC it was clear that there was a disagreement on the method of providing payment to the applicant such that the adjuster would be required to testify at tho upcoming trial.

The WCJ noted that “the defendant cites multiple ways in which the adjuster could be allowed to testify at trial. However, the defendant fails to appreciate that the witness’ credibility is being assessed at trial and it is often difficult for the trier of fact to asses credibility if the witness is not present in the courtroom while providing testimony.”

Thus the WCJ ordered that defendant’s claims adjuster, who lives in Illinois, must appear in person for trials. The employer filed a timely, verified Petition for Removal seeking relief from this order.

Defendant argues that it would suffer substantial prejudice if it were required to produce the claims adjuster at trial “where alternative means of obtaining testimony exists,” noting . that verbal testimony can be obtained by courtcall or video conferencing.

Defendant also points out that the purpose of taking the claims adjuster’s testimony would be to elicit the claims adjuster’s verbal response, and the claims adjuster’s “physical presence adds nothing to the verbal testimony that he/she may provide.” Defendant states that producing the claims adjuster in person for “one or more hearings” would place a “significant burden” on defendant, in addition to the additional costs required.

The WCAB granted removal in the significant panel decision of Jamie Simmons v Just Wingin’ It, Inc. and ProCentury Insurance Company.

“We agree with defendant, and see no reason not to use the alternative means of obtaining the claims adjuster’s testimony. We further note that the California Code of Civil Procedure explicitly provides for the taking of depositions by remote electronic means, as do the California Rules of Court. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.310(a)

“A person may take, and any person other than the deponent may attend, a deposition by telephone or other remote electronic means”; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1010(a)- (b). “Any party may take an oral deposition by telephone, videoconference, or other remote electronic means [ … and] [a]ny party may appear and participate in an oral deposition by telephone, videoconference, or other remote electronic means[.]”),

Doctors Misdiagnose Spine For Hip Pain

Many patients live with low back pain that radiates to the buttock, groin, thigh, and even knees. The challenge for patients, and often their doctors, is determining the origin of the pain — the hip, the spine, or both.

A new article published in the February Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (JAAOS) outlines the identical symptoms associated with hip and spine pain and discusses the diagnostic steps and tests required to treat them appropriately.

Typically, groin pain, and/or difficulty putting on shoes or getting in and out of a car, are associated with a hip condition.

Buttock or back pain, with or without a tingling sensation, most likely originates in the spine.

However, patients with complex “hip-spine syndrome” have lower back and hip pain with no clear source of the discomfort. Hip arthritis, for example, can increase pressure on the lower back.

“In these instances, similar or overlapping symptoms may delay a correct diagnosis and appropriate treatment,” said article author Afshin Razi, MD, an orthopaedic surgeon and clinical assistant professor at NYU Langone Hospital for Joint Diseases.

The article recommends that patients provide a detailed health history and undergo a comprehensive physical examination that includes an assessment of gait (how the patient walks); hip and back range of motion; posture; pelvic, lower limb, and spinal alignment; loss of muscle (atrophy); previous surgical scars; and limb-length discrepancy.

“Plain and advanced imaging studies and diagnostic injections also can be used to further delineate the primary problem and guide the appropriate sequence of treatment,” said Dr. Razi.

Diagnoses for hip and spine pain can include hip osteoarthritis, a stress fracture, osteonecrosis of the hip (a blockage in blood flow to the hip), a labral tear (damage to the cartilage that surrounds the hip), disc herniation and possible pinched nerves, stenosis (narrowed spinal canal causing nerve pain), sacroiliac joint dysfunction, and other less common sources of pain.

“Focusing on both the spine and the hip as potential causes of pain and disability may reduce the likelihood of misdiagnosis, and the management of conditions affecting the spine and/or hip may help reduce the likelihood of persistent symptoms,” said Dr. Razi.

Harris Poll: Patients “Clueless” About Antibiotic Abuse

Antibiotics and similar drugs, together called antimicrobial agents, have been used for the last 70 years to treat patients who have infectious diseases. Since the 1940s, these drugs have greatly reduced illness and death from these infectious diseases.

However, these drugs have been used so widely and for so long that the infectious organisms the antibiotics are designed to kill have adapted to them, making the drugs less effective.

Each year in the United States, at least 2 million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these infections.

But a new HealthDay/Harris Poll shows most Americans are clueless about the dangers, More than two-thirds of U.S. adults know “little” or “nothing” about so-called superbugs — bacterial infections that are resistant to many or all antibiotics. And around half believe, incorrectly, that antibiotics work against viruses.

That’s a concern because improper antibiotic use is considered the major driver of the superbug problem — a problem with deadly consequences.

“This poll shows that public ignorance is a huge part of the problem,” said Humphrey Taylor, chairman emeritus of The Harris Poll. “Millions of patients continue to believe that antibiotics will help them recover from colds, flu and other viral infections,” Taylor said, “and they can be upset with their doctors if they will not prescribe them.”

According to the agency, some of the most dangerous infections include: Clostridium difficile, a gut infection that often arises after someone has been on a long course of antibiotics for a different infection; and antibiotic-resistant strains of gonorrhea, pneumonia and Staphylococcus aureus — which can infect the skin, lungs or bloodstream.

In the new poll, 69 percent of Americans said they know little to nothing about the superbug problem. Meanwhile, 53 percent said that antibiotics are effective against viral infections, 40 percent said they fight the common cold, and 48 percent said they battle the flu.

Wrong on all counts.

The typical American may not be well-versed in infectious disease, but even a little knowledge can be enough, said Dr. Brad Spellberg, a spokesman for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

“Most people have probably heard the term ‘superbug,’ and know they should be afraid of them,” said Spellberg, who is also a professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine.

And he had some advice for what the public can do: “Don’t pressure your doctor for an antibiotic,” he said. “And when your doctor does prescribe one, ask whether it’s really necessary. We need to flip the script.”

Spellberg also pointed to a less obvious tactic. “Choose to buy antibiotic-free meat. Companies respond to what the public buys.”   That’s important because in the United States, antibiotics are commonly given to food-producing animals to promote their growth. That practice, the CDC says, can cause animals to develop drug-resistant bacteria, which can then be transmitted to humans.

Sleep Clinic Whistleblower Gets Half Million

Bay Sleep Clinic, its related businesses – Qualium Corporation and Amerimed Corporation – and their owners and operators, Anooshiravan Mostowfipour and Tara Nader have agreed to pay $2.6 million to settle allegations that they fraudulently billed the Medicare program. The allegations against the Defendants were set out in an amended False Claims Act complaint filed by the United States on August 8, 2016.

According to the complaint, Saratoga, Calif., residents Mostowfipour, 58, and Nader, 58, own Amerimed Corporation (that was doing business as Amerimed Sleep Diagnostics and Amerimed CPAP Specialists) and Qualium Corporation, which operated twenty sleep clinics doing business as Bay Sleep Clinic.

The government alleged that as early as April 2002, Mostowfipour, Nader, and their businesses fraudulently billed Medicare for sleep tests performed by technicians lacking the licenses or certifications required by Medicare payment rules.

In addition, the Defendants billed Medicare for sleep tests that allegedly were conducted at unenrolled and unapproved locations. Specifically, the government alleged that defendants regularly falsified documents to make it appear that a sleep test had been given at one of the defendants’ two locations which had been approved by Medicare, when, in fact, the test had been conducted at another, unapproved facility.

Additionally, the government alleged the Defendants fraudulently billed Medicare for medical devices in violation of Medicare rules and regulations that prohibit providers of diagnostic sleep tests from supplying medical devices and from sharing a sleep laboratory location with a durable medical equipment supplier.

The whistleblower action, captioned United States ex rel. Dresser v. Qualium Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 12-1745 (N.D. Cal.), was filed under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act allows for private persons, such as Elma F. Dresser in this case, to file actions to provide the government information about wrongdoing and then obtain a portion of the government’s recovery. Dresser will receive approximately $545,000.

As is permitted by the statute, the United States intervened in the action in May 2015 and filed its initial complaint in intervention in September 2015.

As part of the agreement, the defendants have voluntarily terminated their two existing Medicare enrollments and agreed not to re-enroll as providers or suppliers in the Medicare program for a period of three years.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Erica Blachman Hitchings, Robin Wall, Kimberly Friday, and Tom Green handled the case with assistance from Jacqueline Hollar, Tina Louie, Bonny Wong, and Stefania Chin. The investigation was conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California and HHS-OIG.

The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability.

OSIP Releases New Self Insured Forms

The Office of Self-Insurance Plans (OSIP) has released new application forms for private stand-alone and group insurers as it continues to modernize and simplify steps for employers. The forms were revised to remove unneeded information and language that no longer applies, which significantly reduced the total number of pages required for submission.

The forms can be downloaded for free from the OSIP website and are found under Forms, Publications, and Reports.

Private stand-alone applications:

Form A-1 (1-2016) Application for a Private Entity Certificate of Consent to Self-Insure
Form A-2 (1-2016) Application for a Public Agency Certificate of Consent to Self-Insure
Form A-3A (1-2016) Private Affiliate Interim Application
Form A-3B (1-2016) Application for a Permanent Certificate of Consent to Self-Insure by an Interim Self-Insurer
Form A-4 (1-2016) Guaranty of Workers’ Compensation Liabilities
Form A4-50 Application for a Certificate to Administer Workers’ Compensation Claims
Form A-5 (1-2016) Corporate Resolution Authorizing Application
Form A-6 (1-2016) Agreement and Undertaking for Security Deposit

Group applications:

Form S-1 (1-2016) Group Master Application for Certificate of Consent to Self-insure
Form S-2A (1-2016) Group Affiliate Member Interim Application
Form S-2B (1-2016) Application for Affiliate Certificate of Consent to Self-insure as a Member of a Group Self-insurer
Form S-3 (1-2016) Corporate Resolution
Form S-4 (1-2016) Indemnity Agreement and Power of Attorney
Form S-5 (1-2016) Agreement of Assumption and Guarantee of Workers’ Compensation Liabilities for Group and Affiliate Members
Form S-6 (1-2016) Agreement and Undertaking for Security Deposit

For more information regarding the application forms contact OSIP at (916) 464-7000.

The Office of Self-Insurance Plans (OSIP) is a program within the director’s office of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) responsible for the oversight and regulation of workers’ compensation self-insurance within California. OSIP is also responsible for establishing and insuring that required security deposits are posted by self-insurers in amounts sufficient to collateralize against potential defaults by self-insured employers and groups.

Are CT Claims This Years Battleground?

Last year Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, introduced and successfully passed Assembly Bill 1244 to crack down on medical providers who defraud the system. AB 1244 provides that If a vendor is convicted of fraud, then they are automatically suspended from treating in workers’ compensation, and the Administrative Director is to create a list of all names of suspended vendors on their website.

Last week, the Department of Industrial Relations, using new powers from Gray’s bill, announced that seven Southern California medical providers had been suspended from treating workers’ compensation payments for fraudulent billings.

As AB 1244 was moving through the process last year, Gray inserted and then quickly removed other language that seemingly relieved employers and insurers of responsibility for some small claims for “cumulative trauma” – injuries that accumulate over months or years, rather than stem from one incident.

This year he has introduced Assembly Bill 221, a new Gray bill that’s similar in thrust to last year’s abandoned language. The proposed law, if passed, will add the following language to Labor Code section 4600 that defines medical care.

(i) For claims of occupational disease or cumulative injury filed on or after January 1, 2018, the employee shall have no liability for payment for medical treatment and the employer shall have no liability for payment for medical treatment unless one or more of the following has occurred:
(1) The treatment was authorized by the employer.
(2) The injury to the body part or body parts for which the treatment was provided has been accepted by the employer.
(3) The appeals board, after an evidentiary hearing or stipulation of the parties, finds the injury to the body part or body parts for which the treatment was provided was compensable.
(4) The employee has undergone an evaluation by a qualified medical examiner, pursuant to Section 4600, or an agreed medical examiner and the evaluating physician has determined that the claimed occupational disease or cumulative injury was caused, in whole or in part, by the employment.

According to the Sacramento Bee, Gray’s office says it’s just another effort to crack down on fraud, but lobbyists who work the issue believe there are other motives.

Companies that represent medical providers in seeking workers’ compensation payments for patients’ bills have labeled it a maneuver by employers and/or insurers to shed liability.

Another theory is that it’s an indirect slap by workers’ compensation lawyers against labor unions for their 2012 deal with employers. The California Applicants Attorneys Association, however, denies paternity.

Labor killed last year’s language and will probably kill AB 221. Whatever its origin or fate, it indicates that in the next round of “reform,” cumulative trauma may be on the table.

Cumulative trauma claims have been increasing rapidly and employers and insurers see them as fraught with fraud, while unions are leery of any changes that could deny legitimate claims.m

Study Says Ultrasound No Help for Fractures

New evidence suggests that receiving low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) to speed up bone healing after fracture has little or no impact on pain or recovery time, say a panel of international experts in The BMJ.

According to the story in Medical News Today, they say LIPUS does not represent an efficient use of health resources and recommend that it should be stopped.

Their advice is part of The BMJ’s ‘Rapid Recommendations’ initiative – to produce rapid and trustworthy guidance based on new evidence to help doctors make better decisions with their patients. Both the new evidence and the guidance are published by The BMJ.

Every year around 4 in 100 people of all ages have a fracture – and up to 10% of these experience slow or complicated healing. As such, fractures have been a target for numerous interventions to aid recovery.

LIPUS was approved for fracture healing by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1994 and is also supported by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Each device costs between US$1300 and $5000 and data suggest it is commonly used in clinical practice. But some studies have shown that the potential benefits of LIPUS on bone healing are highly uncertain.

So The BMJ’s guideline panel – made up of bone surgeons, physiotherapists, clinicians and patients with experience of fractures – carried out a detailed analysis of the latest evidence.

They judged, with moderate to high certainty, that LIPUS has little or no impact on time to return to work, time to full weight bearing, pain, the number of subsequent operations, or time to healing assessed with radiographs (known as radiographic healing).

As such, they unanimously recommend against LIPUS for patients with any bone fractures or osteotomy (the surgical cutting of a bone to allow realignment).

“We have moderate to high certainty of a lack of benefit for outcomes important to patients, and, combined with the high costs of treatment, LIPUS represents an inefficient use of limited healthcare resources,” they write.

It is unlikely that new trials will alter the evidence, they add. And they suggest that future research “should focus on other interventions that have a greater probability to speed up healing.”