OWCP announces a change of contact number for ACS effective 1/1/2015

Effective January 2, 2015 the ACS customer service number for questions related to provider enrollment, Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) bill payment, and FECA medical authorization status is changing to a new toll free number, (844) 493-1966. Please continue to use the current ACS contact number of (850) 558-1818 until January 2, 2015, when that number will be disconnected. By providing a toll free number, we will be able to offer a more stable service for our stakeholders.

OWCP and other workers compensation systems no longer meet their basic goals

The idea behind workers compensation systems was that injured workers should get immediate benefits allowing them to not lose income and get the medical care they need to return to work as quickly as possible so as to avoid simple injuries becoming serious and the destruction of families due to lengthy waits to receive replacement income. Unfortunately, this system is presently failing many injured workers. This is an interesting article on how OWCP other state systems no longer provide the benefits that they were intended to provide because of the increasing complexity of a system that become more employer oriented by the day:
 http://www.nesri.org/news/2013/03/workers-compensation-the-systems-devastating-economic-impact-on-workers-lives

The Importance of Clarity in Making Rule 49 Offers

The law with respect to r. 49 offers is increasingly complicated.  It is important for offers to be clear in order to benefit from the provisions of r. 49.  At the same time, even if an offer does not qualify as a r. 49 offer, it can be taken into consideration when a court is deciding costs.

In Elbakhiet v. Palmer, 2014 ONCA 544 (C.A.), the plaintiffs sought damages of almost $2 million dollars.  After a jury trial, they were awarded $144,013.07.  The plaintiffs made one offer of $600,000 plus costs.  The defendants made two offers, the second of which was $145,000 plus pre-judgment interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act plus costs.

One of the issues at the Court of Appeal was whether the defendants obtained a judgment as favourable or less favourable than their offer.  The defendants’ position was that the offer was intended to mean PJI of 5% on the entire offer (which would mean the offer exceeded the judgment).  The trial judge held that it was not clear that there was a uniform practice that 5% would be applied to the entire offer, and different rates of interest could apply to different heads of damages.  She held the defendants had not beat their offer and ordered the defendants to pay costs of almost $580,000.

The Court of Appeal held that there is no evidence of a general understanding that 5% would apply to the entire offer.  At the same time, the trial judge failed to give proper consideration to r. 49.13 which permits the court to exercise discretion and take into account any offers made.  Since the offer to settle was virtually the same as the judgment, the trial judge should have taken r. 49.13 into account.  She erred in failing to do so.

The Court of Appeal held that “it was not fair and reasonable to award the [plaintiffs] costs of almost $580,000 for a claim the jury valued at just under $145,000”.  It allowed the appeal and reduced the costs payable to the plaintiffs to $100,000. 

Appeals Court sidesteps question of whether PIP carriers can have IME conducted by physical therapist

 Judith Ortiz was injured in an automobile accident. She sought PIP benefits from Commerce. 

Commerce sent Ortiz a notice indicating that she would have an independent medical examination conducted by a physician named Eugene Boeglin.  Ortiz attended the examination.  When Commerce sent her lawyer a copy of the IME report, she learned that Boeglin was not a medical doctor but a "doctor of physical therapy."  (Side note:  I have read hundreds of plaintiffs' physical therapy notes in my career.  Since the notes were all more or less the same I had come to assume that PT was bogus -- until I was referred to PT a few years ago for a pinched nerve.  Those people are miracle workers with knowledge that goes extremely deep.) 

Ortiz sued Mass Medical Services, apparently Boeglin's employer, for violation of the privacy statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214 s. 1B and of ch. 93A. 

In Ortiz v. Mass Medical Services, Inc., 86 Mass. App. Ct. 1116, 2014 WL 5326511 (unpublished), the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed dismissal of the privacy act claim for failure to comply with the statute of limitations. 

The court dismissed the 93A claim because the allegedly unfair and deceptive act -- the fact that Boeglin was a physical therapist, not a medical doctor -- caused no adverse consequences or loss. 

The court did not address whether Commerce itself was in violation of any statute or acting in bad faith by having the IME conducted by a physical therapist. 

Insurance News - Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Wednesday, October 29, 2014:

• Quebec is not being as aggressive as Ontario with regard to telematics since the take-up for auto usage-based insurance products has been lackluster to date.
• It's hard to imagine tomorrow’s transportation infrastructure to support driverless cars when haven't gotten around to fixing today’s infrastructure.
• In New York insurers and and trial lawyers agree the state’s no fault insurance law needs reforming but they don't agree on how.  Sounds like Ontario.
• New Jersey has a bill that today is advancing in the Legislature that would establish a program to allow people to obtain endorsements on their driver’s licenses to operate and test driverless vehicles.

The Importance of Certainty When Pursuing the Deduction of Collateral Benefits

The jury in Gilbert v. South et al., 2014 ONSC 3485 (CanLII), awarded the plaintiff general damages, future care costs and damages for past and future income loss and loss of housekeeping.

The plaintiff had been injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2010. The plaintiff’s injuries were non-catastrophic. He was entitled to certain statutory accident benefits including up to $100,000 for medical and rehabilitation, subject to a 10-year time period.

The plaintiff had received some medical benefits totalling $14,822.50 and housekeeping benefits totaling $14,822.50. The plaintiff had neither applied for nor received income replacement benefits or attendant care benefits and the time period to receive same had expired. The time period had also expired for the plaintiff to receive future housekeeping benefits. The defendant did not seek relief in relation to the benefits that may have been available to the plaintiff but were not pursued.

Prior to judgment being formally entered, the defendant brought a motion seeking various forms of relief relating to “certain futurestatutory accident benefits and other collateral benefits” received or to be received by the plaintiff.

The defendant relied on s.267.8 of the Insurance Actwhich in certain prescribed circumstances imposes trust, payment and assignment obligations on plaintiffs who in motor vehicle accident cases obtain certain types of litigated recovery for losses which also may be addressed by certain collateral benefits (para 8).

Justice Leach set out the general principals relating to the application of this section, including the following (pars 9):

·         the object of these provisions is to prevent “double recovery” by the plaintiff. The provisions assume that the plaintiff has obtained, through litigation, damages covering the same loss otherwise covered by the collateral benefits;

 

·         concern of double-recovery is balanced by concern that a plaintiff should receive full compensation and not recover less than that to which he is entitled. Statutory provisions of this nature are strictly interpreted and applied;

 

·         deductions from a plaintiff’s damage award to prevent double-recovery will be made only if it is absolutely clear that the plaintiff’s entitlement to such collateral benefits is certain, and the plaintiff received compensation for the same benefits in the tort judgment. Evidence of “likelihood” and “probability” is not enough to warrant a deduction. A “very strict onus of proof” applies in relation to such matters, and it must be “patently clear” that the preconditions for an appropriate deduction have been established.

Justice Leach held that there were too many uncertainties as to entitlement and overlap to grant the relief requested and the defendant’s motion was denied. There was no evidence as to the total amount or the nature of statutory accident benefits the plaintiff would definitely receive.

A further obstacle to the relief requested by the defendant was that the jury awarded the plaintiff $57,250.00 for “future care costs” but the jury did not indicate, and was not asked to indicate, the extent to which any of this amount was allocated to the time period during which the plaintiff may be entitled to medical and rehabilitation benefits. Of importance, Justice Leach notes that this uncertainty may have been avoided by the posing of more specific questions to the jury.

This decision stresses the importance of quantifying future entitlement to collateral benefits in advance of trial and the importance of taking care to ask the necessary questions of the jury in order to identify any overlap between the tort award and collateral benefits.

It's a whole new ballgame in PIP litigation, thanks to an SJC decision

I have written before, here, about why it is difficult to sue PIP carriers who fail to pay claims.  PIP claims are by their nature small: generally not more than $2000 and never more than $8000.  The PIP statute provides that the insurer must pay the claimant's attorney's fees if a judgment against the carrier enters.  Up until now, an insurer could avoid paying those fees if it forced a claimant to file suit, conduct discovery and go to trial and then, minutes before judgment enters, paid the claim.  Of course if the claimant proved bad faith in the insurer's actions then attorney's fees were available under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, but bad faith is harder to prove than mere failure to pay a claim when due.  Although some wiggle room was found by various decisions of the Massachusetts Appellate Division (a court that does not set precedent), see here and here, PIP cases in general were simply a bad risk. 

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has changed all that.

In Barron Chiropractic & Rehabilitation, P.C. v. Norfolk & Dedham Group, 469 Mass. 800 (2014), the SJC has held that an unpaid party who has brought suit may refuse the insurer's tender of PIP amounts due, proceed with suit, and obtain a judgment for those amounts as well as its costs and attorney's fees. 

The plaintiff, Barron Chiropractic & Rehabilitation, provided chiropractic services to Nicole Jean-Pierre after an auto accident.  Jean-Pierre's PIP carrier was Norfolk & Dedham. 

Jean Pierre's chiropractor at Barron and Norfolk & Dedham disagreed about the length of treatment made necessary by the accident and about the proper price for her treatment.  The disputed amount was $1,544.05. 

Barron sued Norfolk & Dedham in District Court.  Norfolk & Dedham determined that its anticipated litigation costs would substantially exceed the amount of the disputed medical fees.  Six days prior to trial it sent Barron a check for the disputed amount with an attached check stub that stated "full and final settlement."  Barron's counsel returned the check to Norfolk's counsel with a letter stating that its offer of settlement was rejected.

The SJC held that under contract law Barron was not required to accept the tender of settlement for the amount due after the time for payment under the PIP statute had passed.  It also held that it would be unfair and against the purpose of the PIP statute to allow the insurer to escape costs and attorney's fees by paying the PIP amount that was due after forcing the claimant to file suit.