•

MINUTES

MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 53rd LEGISLATURE - REGULAR SESSION

SELECT COMMITTEE ON WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Call to Order: By CHAIRMAN CHASE HIBBARD, on January 25, 1993, at 3:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL

Members Present: Rep. Chase Hibbard, Chairman (R) Rep. Jerry Driscoll, Vice Chairman (D) Rep. steve Benedict (R) Rep. Ernest Bergsagel (R) Rep. vicki Cocchiarella (D) Rep. David Ewer (D)

Members Excused: None

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Paul Verdon, Legislative Council Evy Hendrickson, Committee secretary

Please Note: These are summary minutes. Testimony and discussion are paraphrased and condensed.

committee Business Summary: Hearing: None

Executive Action: None

CHAIRMAN HIBBARD introduced Chuck Hunter, Department of Labor and Industry, to discuss their safety program.

opening statement

Chuck Hunter, representing the Department of Labor and Industry, distributed copies of the organizational chart entitled Safety Bureau, Research, Safety and Training Division. EXHIBIT 1

The safety bureau does safety inspections, enforces standards and has the ability to impose standards on public sector employers. If there are safety violations and unsafe working conditions, the bureau has the ability to require conformity with the standards.

The safety bureau also provides consultations for private sector employers. The bureau has no legal jurisdiction to enforce standards in the private sector but many private sector employers request the bureau to come in and do safety consultation and inspections. A written report is given detailing the findings

930125SW.HM1

HOUSE SELECT WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMITTEE January 25, 1993

Page 2 of 3

and providing recommendations.

The department is placing particular emphasis on safety consultations and inspections. Safety is one of the areas where an employer can get a handle on his workers' compensation costs by preventing accidents in the work place. The key to the safety program is for both the employer and the workers to take safety seriously.

Mr. Hunter reviewed SENATOR HARP'S bill which was introduced at the request of the Governor. The bureau is very supportive of the concept of the bill.

REP. HIBBARD asked Mr. Hunter to explain the different functions of safety as viewed by the State Fund and the bureau.

Mr. Hunter said that both the State Fund and the Department of Labor have a large interest in preventing accidents in the work place. They contemplate working with schools and various groups to establish an awareness of the need for safety in the work place.

REP. COCCHIARELLA asked Mr. Hunter if the FTE requested were on the chart at the present time or if they would be added. Mr. Hunter replied they would be added if they were included when the budget was finalized. '

REP. COCCHIARELLA asked if the FTE were in the safety bill or not. Mr. Hunter said the four FTE were not in the safety bill -they were in the Governor's budget.

In response to a question from Rep. Driscoll, John Maloney, Safety Bureau Chief, responded that the mine safety inspectors, in addition to inspecting the coal mines as required four times a year, also do safety training, first aid and CPR.

REP. BERGSAGEL asked if the request in SENATOR HARP'S bill and the request from the agency would result in five FTE. Mr. Maloney said it would result in five.

Mr. Maloney said the coal mining inspector doesn't work exclusively on coal mines but it is the majority of the work.

REP. BERGSAGEL asked if there was any coordination between OSHA and the department. Mr. Maloney replied that each coal mine is inspected four times per year by the department and each is inspected twice per year by the federal mine inspectors (OSHA). In Montana OSHA inspects only private sector entities and the safety bureau inspects only public sector entities.

REP. EWER asked if the Department of Labor keeps statistics on injuries. Mr. Maloney replied affirmatively.

REP. HIBBARD asked how many of the 19 FTE were in the area of

930125SW.HM1

HOUSE SELECT WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMITTEE January 25, 1~93

Page 3 of 3

safety consultation and how many in the area of safety inspection. Mr. Hunter said it's a mixture and most of the people are capable of doing both.

Mr. Maloney said under the current operation, consultation comes only upon request of the private sector. The department is funded by grants from OSHA; 10% of the budget can be spent in the on-site consultation program, so it does not consume a great deal of the department's time.

REP. EWER said the committee was very interested in knowing what type of injuries occur and asked for a breakdown on what type of claims predominate and what steps should be taken to reduce them. Mr. Maloney said the latest statistics on injuries by industry and types of injuries had been prepared by the Research Bureau at the Department of Labor and was available. Mr. Maloney said it contained all injuries but didn't break them down according to plan by injuries, lost-time injuries or how many days were missed as a result of the injury. In conclusion, Mr. Hunter said the statistics show how much is unknown about accidents. He also said the areas where the department would like spend significant time would be the high hazard industries.

ADJOURNMENT

Adjournment: 4:20 p.m.

; I -··f ..... ) .~ d><-7 ::Jc REP. CHASE HIBBARD, Chairman

~

CH/eh

930125SW.HM1

lIOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

______ S~e~l_e~c_t ___ W_o_r_k_e_r_s ___ C_o_m~p~ ______ COMMITTEE

ROLL CALL VOTE

BILL NO. NUMBER

MOTION:

I NAME I .AHI- I NO I Chase Hibbard J..--

.....--.T ,..... .~ ~" ~ .1

Steve Benedict -Ernest Berosaoel 9 ,-

( _',/9 /~ . l '-. :/

/ Vicki Cocchiarella

David Ewer / , , ,

'r

I

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NTA

L E

NG

INE

ER

III

Gra

de 1

5 -

Indu

stria

l Hyg

iene

Jo

e U

uzza

TRA

ININ

G O

FFIC

ER

II

Gra

de 1

3

SA

FETY

/HE

ALT

H S

PE

CIA

US

T II

Gra

de 1

3 -

Met

al/N

onm

etal

Min

e In

spec

tor

Joe

Don

alds

on

SA

FETY

/HE

ALT

H S

PE

CIA

US

T II

Gra

de 1

3 -

Coa

l Min

e In

spec

tor

I B

u-ne

st G

ambl

e

SA

FETY

/HE

ALT

H S

PE

CIA

US

T II

Gra

de 1

3 -

Coa

l Min

e In

spec

tor

Ron

Um

sche

id

H

SA

FETY

/HE

ALT

H S

PE

CIA

US

T II

Gra

de 1

3 -

Boi

ler

Insp

ecto

r T

om

f-

SA

FETY

/HE

ALT

H S

PE

CIA

US

T II

Gra

de 1

3'-

Boi

ler

Insp

ecto

r D

enni

s

SA

FETY

/HE

ALT

H S

PE

CIA

US

T II

-G

rade

13

-C

rane

/Bla

ster

Exa

mne

r T

om J

ones

AD

MIN

IST

RA

llVE

AID

E I

-

Gra

de 7

-1/

2 tim

e T

eres

a

AD

MIN

ISTR

AllV

E A

IDE

II

Gra

deS

S

haro

n

SA

FElY

/HE

ALT

H S

PE

CIA

US

T II

SA

FElY

/HE

ALT

H S

PE

CIA

US

T II

Gra

de 1

3 C

liffo

rd

SA

FElY

/HE

ALT

H S

PE

CIA

US

T II

Gra

de 1

3

AD

MIN

ISTR

AllV

E A

IDE

I

Jane

s

;r

/ l~--i+i;; j

.-J

.. "-::

~-..::.

•. -.

'---

~-"'

..:.

---r

-

D/.-:-

~~ /-

p7s.

--/~

__ ~'

I In __

,~,_

BACKGROUND OF THE "OREGON l\1IRACLE"

Prepared for

uJ-Har' DA.rE.._-.L-=~C)-~

HOUSE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON WORKERS' COMPENSATION By Paul Verdon, Staff Researcher

January 22, 1993

The modifications in the Oregon workers' compensation system that occurred in 1988-90 resulted in a turnaround of its financial situation so dramatic that it is commonly referred to as the "Oregon Miracle".

ATTACHED IS A.COPY 1990 OREGON WORKERS' COMPENSATION REFORM LAW COMPARISON WHICH OUTLINES THE CHANGES THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE TURNAROUND

MONTANANS FIND MAJOR CHANGES IN OREGON'S COMPENSATION LAW

After visiting Oregon last year, a group of Montana State Fund executives found that a number of major changes in Oregon's workers' compensation law in 1990 stimulated the dramatic turnaround. These included: 1

1. Development of Managed Care Organizations (MCO) which resulted in cost-effective, high-quality care for the claimant. savings were estimated at approximately $12 million in the first year.

2. Major reforms in the laws and administrative rules: the definition of a job-related injury was changed and the claimant must have objective medical evidence that he did suffer an injury. Aggravation of a pre-existing condition is limited to the extent of the aggravation only, and to be compensable the claimant's disability has to be caused more than 50% by the aggravation.

3. Development of an early return to work program and the establishment of a fraud control and investigative unit.

4. Severe restriction on the role of chiropractic, now limited to a maximum of 12 treatments or 30 days, thereafter only at the prescription of a treating medical doctor. A chiropractor cannot declare or keep a person disabled more than 30 days.

Because SAIF is willing to defend against frivolous claims or overcharges with all its resources, those kinds of claims have dropped significantly.

The SAIF Claims Division's objective is to:

1. Accept compensable claims promptly and target 14 days.

EXH1B!1 __ i _~_.~ ~l.~TE.. \-d.-S-'1:7

BACKGROUND OF THE "OREGON MIRACLE"

2. Return claimants to work as soon as possible either through an early return to work program or speedy resolution of the claim.

3. For acceptance of a claim, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

SAIF sees its first responsibility as to its customers, the policyholders, and involves the policyholder in claims handling from the beginning.

SAIF employs 1,150 people and handles about 39,000 new incident reports per year. The staff of the Montana state Fund handles about 21,000 new claims per year and would have to be more than doubled to approximate Oregon's staffing pattern.

SAIF'S ANTI-FRAUD CAMPAIGN

By 1988, phony claims, bogus medical bills and other problems in Oregon's workers' compensation system had burdened Oregon with the eighth highest rates in the nation. SAIF corporation, the state's largest workers' compensation insurance carrier, was suffering losses of $1 million a week. But SAIF turned itself ar6und in two years and in 1990 made nearly $46.5 million, lowered rates by 10%, and paid a $20 million dividend., A crackdown on fraud played a large part in the improvement.

2

When a former deputy state attorney general was appointed head of SAIF in 1988 he recognized the damage fraud was causing and made fighting fraud a high priority. A Fraud/Investigations Division was created, and investigators, many of them former police officers with training in investigations, were hired and a "fraud hotline" was established. A chief architect of the anti-fraud program was an attorney who had spent 22 years as a trial lawyer defending doctors in medical malpractice cases. A staff of more than 50 people used a full range of investigative tactics including photographic surveillance and undercover agents to ferret out and prosecute cheaters.

In its first 20 months, the hotline generated more than 2,300 investigations. !h the first two years, the investigators obtained more than $1 million in judgments against or settlements with 22 medical providers and actions were pending against 24 more. In some cases medical care providers were sentenced to jail, lost their licenses to practice or were barred forever from treating injured workers employed by SAIF policyholders. SAIF also successfully prosecuted nearly 40 persons for theft, perjury, and other criminal charges and filed charges against dozens more.

The war on fraud has been cost effective, receiving more in judgments, awards, settlements, and restitutions amounts than it

EXH!8n __ , _____ "

D}~TE \ - ~-S ~c,)

BACKGROUND OF THE "OREGON MIRACLE" 3

was paying out in operating cost, but officials say its real value has been in the deterrent effect on others. Total claims filed with SAIF dropped 24% by the end of 1990, and the fraud program was thought to be a significant factor in the drop. The anti-fraud program gave SAIF a reputation for wanting to preserve the integrity of the insurance program and this gave it a competitive edge that contributed to $27 million in new business in 1990 and a customer retention rate of 97%.2

ASSIGNED RISK POOL

In 1980, an Assigned Risk Pool was established to make workers' compensation insurance available to employers unable to obtain coverage in the voluntary market. Beginning in October 1989, SAIF Corporation began the nonrenewal of policies held by approximately 10,000 employers, but the majority of the nonrenewals were not effective until 1990, when many of those employers fell into the Assigned Risk Pool. By the end of 1990, the number of policyholders in the Pool had jumped to 14,882, more than four times as many as a year earlier. Net premiums written in the pool totaled $71.9 million, up 150% from 1989, while the average premium per risk dropped from $7,874 in 1989 to $4,834 in 1990. The premiums of all employers in the Pool are subject to the ARP expense loading factor. In the first half of 1990, that factor was 1.719 and increased to 1.738 on ,July 1, 1990. The average factor in the voluntary market for 1~90 was 1.260.

Under the Assigned Risk Plan, SAIF, Liberty Northwest, and Employers Insurance of Wausau act as service providers. ARP net operating losses are apportioned to all insurers, based on their share of ~orkers' compensation premiums written in Oregon's voluntary market. The burden of risk pools upon the voluntary market in the 33 jurisdictions with similar pools was over 16% of voluntary written premiums in 1990. In Oregon, the burden was 7.2%, up from 3.8% in 1989. Oregon's assigned risk premiums were 9.8% of total workers' compensation premiums written by SAIF and private insurers, compared to the 24.1% pool market share for the 33 jurisdictions overall. 3

1. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM, Montana State Compensation Mutual Insurance Fund, April 7, 1992

2. SAIF Corporation's Anti-fraud Campaign, memo prepared by SAIF

3. Oregon Worker' Compensation Premiums, CY 1990, Research and Analysis Section, Oregon Department of Insurance and Finance

19

90

OR

EG

ON

WO

RK

ER

S' C

OM

PE

NS

AT

ION

RE

FO

RM

L

AW

CO

MP

AR

ISO

N

On

May

7,

1990

, th

e O

rego

n Le

gisl

atur

e m

et in

spe

cial

ses

sion

and

pas

sed

a w

orke

rs'

com

pens

atio

n re

form

bill

, S

enat

e B

ill 1

197.

T

he p

acka

ge o

f re

form

s em

bodi

ed in

the

bi

ll ha

d be

en n

egot

iate

d by

an

advi

sory

com

mitt

ee c

ompo

sed

of la

bor

and

man

agem

ent

repr

esen

tativ

es.

Mo

st p

rovi

sion

s of

the

bill

too

k ef

fect

on

July

1,

1990

.

The

fol

low

ing

do

cum

en

t is

a s

um

ma

ry o

f th

e m

ajor

pro

visi

ons

of t

he b

ill.

It al

so

incl

udes

som

e el

emen

ts o

f the

neg

otia

ted'

pac

kage

whi

ch w

ere

not s

tatu

tory

in n

atur

e,

bu

t wer

e ag

reed

to

and

impl

emen

ted

as p

art

of t

he r

efor

ms.

NE

W L

AW

O

LD L

AW

r_~HtBn

DA

rE.-

.\ -~7 ~

cl ?

1.

DE

FIN

ITIO

N O

F A

CO

MP

EN

SA

BL

E C

LA

IM

A.

INJU

RIE

S

1.

DE

FIN

ITIO

N O

F A

CO

MP

EN

SA

BLE

CLA

IM

A.

INJU

RIE

S

The

exi

sten

ce o

f an

inj

ury

mu

st b

e es

tabl

ishe

d by

med

ical

e

vid

en

ce s

uppo

rted

by

obje

ctiv

e fin

ding

s.

* *

* *

No

chan

ge.

* *

* *

Con

ditio

ns p

re-e

xist

ing

an i

njur

y or

dev

elop

ing

subs

eque

ntly

are

co

mp

en

sab

le o

nly

if th

e co

mp

en

sab

le in

jury

is t

he

maj

or

cont

ribu

ting

(prim

ary)

cau

se.

* *

* *

A c

laim

ant's

tes

timon

y (f

or e

xam

ple,

tha

t he

fel

t pa

in),

with

ou

t an

y ob

ject

ive

evid

ence

, w

as e

noug

h to

est

ablis

h th

e in

jury

.

* *

* *

Inju

ries

are

com

pe

nsa

ble

whe

n th

e w

ork

activ

ity is

a m

ater

ial c

ause

o

f th

e in

jury

.

" *

" *

Pre

-exi

stin

g an

d su

bseq

uent

ly d

evel

opin

g co

nditi

ons

we

re

com

pe

nsa

ble

wh

en

eve

r th

e in

jury

was

sim

ply

a m

ater

ial

(eno

ugh

to

mak

e a

diff

eren

ce)

caus

e of

any

wor

seni

ng o

r w

as a

mat

eria

l ca

use

of a

n in

crea

se in

sym

ptom

s or

pro

long

atio

n of

con

ditio

n.

* *

• *

Pag

e 1

NE

W L

AW

O

LD L

AW

t:

xH!n

n. _

\ __ .

Any

inj

ury,

the

ma

jor

cau

se o

f w

hic

h w

as

alco

hol o

r dr

ug u

se,

is

Su

ch i

njur

ies

we

re c

ompe

nsab

le ..

: 1

.!l,TE

\ -~s_cy~

-~---~ ....

-..

not

com

pe

nsa

ble

(un

less

the

em

plo

yer

pe

rmitt

ed

, e

nco

ura

ge

d,

or

has

act

ua

l kn

ow

led

ge

of

the

alco

hol

or d

rug

use)

.

* ..

* ..

Inju

rie

s re

sulti

ng f

rom

re

cre

atio

na

l o

r so

cial

act

iviti

es a

re n

ot

com

pe

nsa

ble

wh

en

th

e a

ctiv

ity is

pri

ma

rily

fo

r th

e w

ork

er'

s b

en

efit

.

B.

DIS

EA

SE

S

A d

ise

ase

is c

om

pe

nsa

ble

on

ly if

the

wo

rk is

th

e m

ajo

r co

ntr

ibu

ting

(pr

imar

y) c

au

se o

f th

e d

ise

ase

.

* *

* *

Occ

up

atio

na

l dis

ea

ses

mu

st b

e e

sta

blis

he

d b

y m

ed

ica

l evi

de

nce

w

ith o

bje

ctiv

e f

indi

ngs.

C.

AG

GR

AV

AT

ION

S

An

y a

gg

rava

tion

s (w

ors

en

ed

co

nd

itio

ns)

rel

?tin

g to

the

ori

gina

l in

jury

or

dis

ea

se a

re c

om

pe

nsa

ble

on

ly w

he

n e

sta

blis

he

d b

y m

ed

ica

l e

vid

en

ce w

ith o

bje

ctiv

e f

ind

ing

s.

* *

* *

An

ag

gra

vatio

n w

ho

se m

ajo

r co

ntr

ibu

ting

ca

use

is a

n o

ff-w

ork

in

jury

is n

ot c

om

pe

nsa

ble

..

D.

CLA

IMS

An

insu

rer

or

self-

insu

red

em

plo

yer

is g

ive

n 9

0 da

ys in

wh

ich

to

acc

ep

t or

de

ny

a cl

aim

.

.. *

* *

* *

* *

, C

om

pe

nsa

ble

unl

ess

the

activ

ity w

as s

olel

y fo

r ti

le w

ork

er'

s b

en

efit

.

B.

DIS

EA

SE

S

Sin

ce 1

98

7 a

me

nd

me

nts

to

the

occ

up

atio

na

l d

ise

ase

law

, ce

rtai

n o

ccu

pa

tion

al

dise

ases

wer

e co

mp

en

sab

le e

ven

if

the

wor

l< h

ad o

nly

a

mat

eria

l im

pa

ct.

* *

* *

Cla

ima

nt's

te

stim

on

y w

as s

uffic

ient

to p

rove

a d

ise

ase

.

C.

AG

GR

AV

AT

ION

S

Cla

ima

nt's

te

stim

on

y of

ten

was

suf

ficie

nt.

* *

* *

Eve

n if

a c

laim

an

t w

orse

ned

a co

mp

en

sab

le c

on

diti

on

sol

ely

be

cau

se o

f an

inj

ury

occu

rrin

g of

f til

e jO

b, i

t w

as

com

pe

nsa

ble

.

, D

. C

LAIM

S

Acc

ep

tan

ce o

r de

nial

wa

s re

quire

d w

ithin

60

days

.

* If

*

If

Pa

ge

2

NE

W L

AW

A "

ba

ck-u

p"

deni

al (

the

deni

al o

f a

pre

vio

usl

y ac

cept

ed c

laim

) is

p

erm

itte

d w

ithin

tw

o ye

ars

of c

laim

acc

epta

nce,

with

any

suc

h de

nial

su

bje

ct to

cle

ar a

nd c

onvi

ncin

g ev

iden

ce b

y th

e e

mp

loye

r.

* *

* *

Cla

ims

or

be

ne

fits

of a

ny k

ind,

exc

ept

for

med

ical

ser

vice

s, a

re

sub

ject

to c

om

pro

mis

e a

nd r

elea

se.

2.

ME

DIC

AL

SE

RV

ICE

S

A w

ork

er'

s at

tend

ing

ph

ysic

ian

in m

ost

cas

es m

ust

be a

me

dic

al

do

cto

r o

r do

ctor

of

oste

opat

hy. *

* *

*

Ch

iro

pra

cto

rs m

ay t

reat

a w

ork

er

with

in t

he f

irst

30 d

ays

of

a cl

aim

or

first

tw

elve

vis

its,

wh

ich

eve

r oc

curs

firs

t; ho

wev

er,

chir

op

ract

ors

act

ing

as m

em

be

rs o

f a

Man

aged

Car

e O

rga

niz

atio

n a

re n

ot

sub

ject

to t

hese

lim

its.

* *

* *

Ma

na

ge

d c

are

org

an

iza

tion

s w

ill b

e pe

rmitt

ed,

subj

ect t

o t

he

fo

llow

ing

pro

visi

on

s:

Ma

na

ge

d C

are

org

an

iza

tion

s (M

CO

s) c

an b

e cr

ea

ted

by

he

alth

car

e p

rovi

de

rs (

incl

udin

g en

titie

s th

at p

rovi

de

su

pp

ort

se

rvic

es

to h

ea

lth c

are

prov

ider

s) a

nd m

ust

be

ce

rtifi

ed

by

the

Dir

ecto

r.

Insu

rers

ma

y co

ntr

act

with

M

CO

s to

pro

vid

e m

edic

al c

are

for

inju

red

wo

rke

rs.

Inju

red

wo

rke

rs w

ho

se m

edic

al t

reat

men

t is

pro

vid

ed

by

an M

CO

mu

st c

hoos

e fr

om a

mon

g th

e M

CO

's s

erv

ice

p

rovi

de

rs (

alth

ough

th

e w

orke

r m

ay

cont

inue

to

tre

at

with

a

no

the

r p

rovi

de

r w

ith w

ho

m t

hey

have

a h

isto

ry o

f tr

ea

tme

nt)

.

OL

D L

AW

Bac

k-up

den

ials

we

re p

erm

issi

ble

only

with

pro

of

of f

raud

, m

isre

pres

enta

tion,

or

illeg

al a

ctiv

ity.

* *

* *

Com

prom

ise

and

rele

ase

wa

s pr

ohib

ited

in t

he a

bse

nce

of

a b

on

a

fide

dis

pu

te o

ver

com

pens

abili

ty.

_.

2.

ME

DIC

AL

SE

RV

ICE

S

Any

lic

ense

d m

edic

al p

rovi

der,

inc

ludi

ng c

hiro

prac

tors

and

oth

ers,

qu

alifi

ed a

s at

tend

ing

phys

icia

ns. * *

* *

Chi

ropr

acto

rs w

ere

not

limite

d, e

xcep

t to

the

ext

ent

an

em

ploy

er

coul

d pr

ove

tha

t tr

ea

tme

nt

was

not

rea

sona

ble

and

nece

ssar

y.

* *

* *

Man

aged

car

e o

rga

niz

atio

ns

wer

e no

t av

aila

ble.

EX

HH

.n

lV~ rr

J:-)

.5. -

y~

Pag

e 3

NE

W L

AW

The

Me

O m

ust

incl

ude

all

cate

gorie

s of

med

ical

ser

vice

pr

ovid

ers,

and

mus

t pro

vide

pee

r re

view

, ut

iliza

tion

revi

ew,

and

ince

ntiv

es to

red

uce

serv

ice

.cos

ts w

ithou

t sa

crifi

cing

qua

lity

of s

ervi

ce.

* *

.. *

(

, ,

OLD

LA

W

* *

* *

Pal

liativ

e ca

re i

s n

ot p

ayab

le a

fter

a w

orke

r be

com

es m

edic

ally

P

allia

tive

care

was

unl

imite

d an

d co

mpe

nsab

le.

stat

iona

ry,

exce

pt t

o m

on

itor

pres

crip

tions

or

pros

thet

ic d

evic

es,

to e

nabl

e w

orke

r to

con

tinue

em

ploy

men

t (a

ppro

val

requ

ired)

, or

fo

r P

TO c

ase.

* *

* *

* *

• *

EX

HIH

P

Ui\

TE: ,

_ \

-d-

S -D

r"?

Med

ical

tre

atm

ent

disp

utes

are

res

olve

d by

an

appo

inte

d do

ctor

M

edic

al s

ervi

ces

disp

utes

wer

e su

bjec

t to

the

ful

l he

arin

g pr

oces

s.

to s

erve

as

a m

edic

al a

rbite

r.

Fee

disp

utes

are

be

reso

lved

su

mm

arily

in m

any

case

s by

the

Dire

ctor

.

* *

* *

* *

* *

On

ly th

e at

tend

ing

phys

icia

n m

ay a

utho

rize

time

loss

or

mak

e N

o su

ch l

imita

tion.

fin

ding

s re

gard

ing

PP

D.

3.

BE

NE

FIT

S

3.

BE

NE

FIT

S

Eac

h de

gree

of

disa

bilit

y fo

r sc

hedu

led

inju

ries

(arm

s, l

egs,

sig

ht,

Sch

edul

ed p

erm

anen

t pa

rtia

l di

sabi

lity

was

pay

able

at

$145

per

he

arin

g) is

pay

able

at

$305

. .'

degr

ee.

* *

* *

Tim

e lo

ss (

tem

pora

ry t

otal

dis

abili

ty c

ompe

nsat

ion)

is n

ot

paya

ble

for

a w

orke

r w

hile

in ja

il.

* *

.. *

Tim

e l

oss

term

inat

es w

hen

a w

orke

r is

med

ical

ly s

tatio

nary

and

th

e cl

aim

is c

lose

d, w

hen

he/s

he a

ctua

lly r

etur

ns t

o w

ork,

or

whe

n he

/she

is r

elea

sed

to r

etur

n to

his

reg

ular

wor

k.

* *

* *

* *

* *

Suc

h be

nefit

s w

ere

paya

ble.

.. ..

* *

No

prov

isio

n fo

r te

rmin

atin

g tim

e lo

ss u

pon

a w

orke

r's r

elea

se t

o re

turn

to

wor

k, u

ntil

he/s

he a

ctua

lly d

id r

etur

n.

* *

* *

Pag

e 4

NE

W L

AW

O

LD L

AW

Em

ploy

er o

r in

sure

r m

ay c

lose

a c

laim

with

out

subm

ittin

g it

to t

he

A c

laim

cou

ld b

e cl

osed

onl

y w

hen

the

wor

ker

actu

ally

ret

urne

d to

D

epar

tmen

t wh

en

a w

orke

r be

com

es m

edic

ally

sta

tiona

ry a

nd is

w

ork.

re

leas

ed t

o re

gula

r or

mod

ified

wor

k.

* *

* *

A w

ork

er

diss

atis

fied

with

the

am

ount

of

perm

anen

t di

sabi

lity

awar

ded

on c

losu

re m

ust

requ

est

reco

nsid

erat

ion

befo

re

proc

eedi

ng f

urth

er.

* *

* *

A c

laim

ant's

ext

ent

of d

isab

ility

is r

ated

as

of th

e da

te o

f re

cons

ider

atio

n, b

ased

on

med

ical

evi

denc

e at

the

tim

e of

re

cons

ider

atio

n.

* *

* *

The

rat

ing

of d

isab

ility

req

uire

s a

stric

t ap

plic

atio

n of

the

S

tand

ards

for

the

Eva

luat

ion

of P

erm

anen

t D

isab

ility

.

* *

* *

Litig

atio

n co

ncer

ning

dis

abili

ty is

lim

ited

to a

rgui

ng t

hat

the

Sta

ndar

ds w

ere

appl

ied

inco

rrec

tly.

* *

.... *

* *

* *

Rec

onsi

dera

tion

of a

n ex

tent

of

disa

bilit

y ra

ting

was

per

mis

sive

on

"ly a

nd r

arel

y us

ed.

* *

* *

Ext

ent o

f di

sabi

lity

was

rat

ed a

s of

the

tim

e of

hea

ring,

with

new

ev

iden

ce c

reat

ed m

onth

s or

yea

rs a

fter

clai

m c

losu

re.

* *

.. *

Use

of

the

Sta

ndar

ds w

as n

ot a

lway

s st

rictly

adh

ered

to.

* ..

* *

A w

orke

r w

as e

ntitl

ed t

o pr

ove

that

the

Sta

ndar

ds d

id n

ot

accu

rate

ly r

efle

ct h

is d

isab

ility

.

* *

.. *

Dis

pute

s ov

er e

xte

nt

of d

isab

ility

invo

lvin

g im

pair

men

t su

ffer

ed

Ref

eree

s w

ould

eva

luat

e an

d de

term

ine

the

imp

air

me

nt s

uffe

red

by

by a

wo

rke

r ar

e de

cide

d by

an

appo

inte

d do

ctor

or

med

ical

pan

el.

a w

orke

r.

* *

* *

* *

* *

EX

Hllj

lir

"If

'f"C

. _

'\e..

-L.

"I.

c

'-"

~ It ~

_J....-__

?:/

,_ ! ?

Pag

e 5

NE

W L

AW

Pay

men

ts p

endi

ng a

ppea

l, ex

cept

for

ong

oing

tim

e lo

ss a

nd

pe

rma

ne

nt

tota

l di

sabi

lity

paym

ents

, ar

e st

ayed

pen

ding

out

com

e of

the

app

eal.

* *

* *

4.

INJU

RE

D W

OR

KE

R R

EIN

ST

AT

EM

EN

T

The

def

initi

on o

f "a

vaila

ble"

now

mea

ns t

hat t

he w

orke

r m

ust

be

rein

stat

ed to

his

/her

form

er p

ositi

on "

even

if th

at p

ositi

on h

as

been

fill

ed b

y a

repl

acem

ent

whi

le t

he i

njur

ed w

orke

r w

as

abse

nt."

The

rep

lace

men

t w

orke

r m

ust b

e re

mov

ed u

pon

the

inju

red

wor

ker'S

ret

urn

to w

ork.

* *

* *

Rei

nsta

tem

ent

right

s te

rmin

ate

thre

e ye

ars

afte

r th

e in

jury

or

whe

neve

r an

y of

the

fol

low

ing

occu

r:

• •

Atte

ndin

g ph

ysic

ian

or m

edic

al p

anel

dec

lare

wo

rke

r ca

nnot

ret

urn

to f

orm

er p

ositi

on o

f em

ploy

men

t.

Wor

ker

is e

ligib

le a

nd p

artic

ipat

es in

voc

atio

nal

assi

stan

ce.

Wor

ker

acce

pts

suita

ble

empl

oym

ent

with

ano

ther

em

ploy

er a

fter

beco

min

g m

edic

ally

sta

tiona

ry.

Wor

ker

wai

ts m

ore

than

sev

en d

ays

to r

eque

st

rein

stat

emen

t af

ter

bein

g no

tifie

d by

the

ins

urer

or

empl

oyer

that

his

doc

tor

has

rele

ased

him

to

retu

rn t

o w

ork.

* *

* *

Em

ploy

ers

with

20

empl

oyee

s or

less

are

not

cov

ered

by

the

rein

stat

emen

t st

atut

e (b

ut e

mpl

oyer

s w

ith 6

or

mor

e em

ploy

ees

rem

ain

subj

ect

to t

he o

blig

atio

n to

pro

vide

sui

tabl

e al

tern

ativ

e w

ork)

.

OLD

LA

W

All

curr

ent

and

past

tim

e lo

ss a

nd o

ther

ben

efits

, ex

cept

med

ical

se

rvic

es,

wer

e pa

yabl

e de

spite

an

appe

al.

All

such

pay

men

ts w

ere

lost

and

cou

ld n

ot b

e re

cove

red

or o

ffset

aga

inst

futu

re b

enef

its

even

if t

he a

ppea

l was

suc

cess

ful.

* *

* *

4.: I

NJU

RE

D W

OR

KE

R R

EIN

ST

AT

EM

EN

T

!

"Ava

ilabl

e" m

eant

"va

cant

" pe

r KIlgRP~CltY_Qf NQ.d~B~nq.

Whe

n an

inj

ured

wor

ker's

pos

ition

was

fill

ed u

pon

his

retu

rn,

he/s

he w

ould

hav

e to

wai

t for

the

nex

t job

ope

ning

.

* *

* *

Rei

nsta

tem

ent

right

s w

ere

lost

onl

y in

the

fol

low

ing

circ

umst

ance

s:

Wor

ker

was

dis

char

ged

for

reas

ons

unre

late

d to

his

inj

urie

s.

Wor

ker

refu

sed

a su

itabl

e jo

b.

Wor

ker

clea

rly a

band

oned

fut

ure

empl

oym

ent.

Wor

ker

faile

d to

mak

e pr

oper

or

timel

y (5

day

s) d

eman

d.

* *

* *

Em

ploy

ers

with

six

or

mor

e em

ploy

ees

wer

e co

vere

d.

D(~ 1

:,!. 3,1

~

'-v 'r

":'

\ -

,., C

;.

e'"

')..,

_ ','

[ I

l.~

__

__

__

tt:=,.:-

[ J

Pag

e 6

L __

____

. __ _

NE

W L

AW

5.

OT

HE

R

Th

e f

und,

re

na

me

d t

he R

ee

mp

loym

en

t A

ssis

tan

ce R

eser

ve,

en

cou

rag

es

hiri

ng o

f p

refe

rre

d w

ork

ers

th

rou

gh

exe

mp

tion

fro

m

pre

miu

m a

nd

ass

ess

me

nts

for

thr

ee y

ears

fro

m t

he d

ate

of

hire

. In

sure

rs' c

laim

cos

ts f

or t

he

se w

ork

ers

are

re

imb

urs

ed

fro

m t

he

fund

. E

ligib

le w

ork

ers

are

iss

ue

d i

dent

ity c

ards

to

be

pre

sen

ted

to

em

plo

yers

at t

he

tim

e of

hire

. * *

* *

Att

orn

ey

fees

on

pe

na

ltie

s fo

r im

pro

pe

r cl

aim

pro

cess

ing

are

lim

ited

to o

ne

-ha

lf of

the

pe

na

lty.

* *

* *

He

ari

ng

s re

fere

es

are

subj

ect

to a

nnua

l, co

nfid

entia

l e

valu

atio

ns

by w

ork

ers

' co

mp

en

satio

n a

tto

rne

ys.

* *

* *

Eve

ry e

mp

loye

r w

ith m

ore

tha

n 10

em

ploy

ees,

and

sm

all

em

plo

yers

in h

aza

rdo

us

bu

sin

ess

es,

are

req

uire

d to

cre

ate

a sa

fety

co

mm

itte

e.

* ..

....

Off

ice

of

Om

bu

dsm

an

fo

r sm

all

bu

sin

ess

cre

ated

to

prov

ide

info

rma

tion

and

ass

ista

nce

to

smal

l bu

sine

ss.

* *

* *'

Cla

ims

Exa

min

ers

mu

st b

e c

ertif

ied.

* *

* *

OLD

LA

W

5.

OT

HE

R

Th

e w

ork

ers

Re

em

plo

yme

nt

Res

erve

enc

oura

ged

the

re-

hiri

ng o

f di

sabl

ed,

inju

red

wo

rke

rs (

"pre

ferr

ed w

orke

rs")

by

reim

bu

rsin

g

prem

ium

cos

ts f

or t

wo

year

s fro

m t

he d

ate

of h

ire.

, , *

.. *

*

A c

laim

an

t's a

tto

rne

y w

as e

ntitl

ed t

o a

sepa

rate

, so

me

time

s su

bsta

ntia

l a

tto

rne

y fe

e re

gard

less

of

the

amou

nt o

f pe

nalty

.

* *

.. *

Co

mm

en

ts c

on

cern

ing

Hea

ring

s re

fere

es w

ere

not

conf

iden

tial

and,

the

refo

re,

we

re r

arel

y cr

itica

l.

* *

* *

Cer

tain

la

rge

co

mp

an

ies

wer

e re

quir

ed t

o ha

ve s

afe

ty c

om

mitt

ee

s.

* ..

.. ..

No

such

pro

visi

on

.

* ..

* *

No

such

pro

visi

on

.

* *

* *

CMW~

ll

l -.

. _._

-_ ..

... -

.. -...

..

I ):

T'"

\

-'I

C

_0

,?-.

. ,

; jlt

J.!

. 1

/

Pag

e 7 •

•

NE

W L

AW

A s

tand

ing

Man

agem

ent-

Labo

r A

dvis

ory

Com

mitt

ee,

appo

inte

d by

the

Gov

erno

r, is

est

ablis

hed

to s

tudy

and

rep

ort

to t

he

Legi

slat

ure

on w

orke

rs' c

ompe

nsat

ion

issu

es.

* *

* *

The

sta

ff of

the

Ore

gon

Occ

upat

iona

l S

afet

y an

d H

ealth

Div

isio

n (O

R-O

SH

A)

was

inc

reas

ed b

y ov

er 4

0 pe

rcen

t. (N

egot

iate

d pr

ovis

ion,

not

spe

cifie

d in

SB

119

7.)

23

65

RA

lha

t

OLD

LA

W

The

Dire

ctor

was

per

mitt

ed to

app

oint

an

advi

sory

com

mitt

ee o

n W

orke

rs'

Com

pens

atio

n is

sues

, to

rep

ort

to t

he D

irect

or.

* *

* *

"

r~"(

l~ ~ ': I'

"{.~ t;

J

__ \.

.!,.

\ -

-;)_ 5

-C(s

Pag

e 8