Copyright

(c) 2010-2025 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Bad faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bad faith. Show all posts

Monday, May 19, 2014

California’s Independent Medical Review System Unreasonably Denies Injured Workers Benefits

A California Appellate review panel recently decided that insurance companies and employers had acted in bad faith in applying provisions of the statute concerning Independent Medical Reviews. An injured worker had been denied pain relief medication contrary to the law.

In article published by lexisnexis.com a leading California Workers’ Compensation attorney, past president of the California Applicants Attorneys Association, and author, Melissa C. Brown, Esq.,
discusses Adel Salem v Riverside County WCAB CA.


“Once again, the WCAB gets it,” says Melissa C. Brown, of Fraulob, Brown, Gowen & Snapp, PLC. “Medical treatment denials that ignore the injured worker’s medical condition as a whole are not issued in good faith.” But Brown believes what Adel Salem suffered in this case would not be remedied by the “watered down” penalty provisions of Labor Code Section 5814, and that “the penalty is no deterrent; it is too little, too late.” Brown explains that the UR denial that occurred in Salem happens hundreds of times a week. “They are SOP,” says Brown. “Insurance companies and self-insured employers would rather pay UR companies and Maximus than follow common sense policies which leave routine and ongoing medical treatment decisions to treating doctors, most of whom are in their own MPNs.” In her opinion, Salem showcases the wholesale erosion of basic benefits to injured workers. “Thousands of workers are seeing their long term and effective treatment regimens terminated with no right to judicial review on the merits,” according to Brown.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Qui Tam Action for MSP Results in Costs to Plaintiff

Federal court ruled that a plaintiff acted with an improper purpose and in bad faith by filing seven different putative qui tam actions against various health care providers under the Medicare Secondary payer Act (MSP). The Federal Court imposed sanctions against plaintiff pursuant to court's inherent power.

The Court reasoned that there was no legal support for plaintiff's claim that MSP was a qui tam statute, Court of Appeals had previously determined that plaintiff's claims were “utterly frivolous” and “unreasonable and vexatious,” and plaintiff had already filed dozens of almost identical cases across the country with similar results.

Stalley ex rel. U.S. v. Mountain States Health Alliance, 644 F.3d 349, C.A.6 (Tenn.), 2011, decided July 08, 2011

Related articles