Just as health care workers and first responders have started to line up for H1N1 flu shots, an adverse reaction to latex has been reported. This development adds further to to the compensable risks resulting from adverse reactions to the vaccine.
Latex allergy claims have long been held compensable in workers' compensation courts throughout the country. The original claims arose out of exposure to latex protein in gloves that came into use as a result of the AIDS epidemic.
A case of latex allergy reaction has been reported in Australia during a vaccination program. While the vaccine and the vial are supposedly latex free, the packing material may not be, and that may have trigger the reaction. One in 100 people are thought to have an allergy to latex.
Reactions to latex may be mild or transitory or may be a permanent sensitization causing hives, shortness of breath, total disability and possible death.
For more articles on Workers' Compensation and the Flu Pandemic click here.
To read more about compensable latex allergy claims click here.
Copyright
(c) 2010-2026 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Workers Compensation Insurance Company and PBMs Liability for Drug Abuse
The Wall Street Journal reports today about a claim against pharmacies as a result of customer drug abuse. In the State of Nevada a case is pending that may confer liability upon a drugstore for the consequences of an accident caused by patient drug abuse. A pharmacy dispensed narcotic painkillers to a Patricia Copening, 35 year old doctor's office receptionist, who killed a 21 year old man in a fatal Las Vegas accident.
A case is pending against the seven pharmacies (Wal-Mart, Longs Drugs, Walgreen Co., CVS Pharmacy, Rite-Aid, Sav-On and Lam’s Pharmacy) that dispensed 4,800 tablets of the drug for Copening in the 13 months prior to the fatal accident.
The Nevada Prescription Controlled Substance Abuse Task Force had notified the pharmacies that Copening was “taking an unusual amount of these narcotics.” The vehicle causing the accident was commercially owned by a physician who was involved in a relationship with the driver.
The Nevada Supreme Court will be deciding whether the pharmacies, previously dismissed by the trial court, are liable because they dispense enormous amounts of drugs to Copening that resulted in drug abuse and resulting the fatal accident.
Where the perimeter of liability may end is unknown. Workers' Compensation insurance companies and their integrated pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) dispense many narcotics, on an ongoing basis, for pain relief, to injured workers. The courts may ultimately deem them unprotected by the "exclusivity rule," and they, as ultimate wrongdoers, may become targets for these tragic yet foreseeable events.
To read more about drugs and workers' compensation click here.
A case is pending against the seven pharmacies (Wal-Mart, Longs Drugs, Walgreen Co., CVS Pharmacy, Rite-Aid, Sav-On and Lam’s Pharmacy) that dispensed 4,800 tablets of the drug for Copening in the 13 months prior to the fatal accident.
The Nevada Prescription Controlled Substance Abuse Task Force had notified the pharmacies that Copening was “taking an unusual amount of these narcotics.” The vehicle causing the accident was commercially owned by a physician who was involved in a relationship with the driver.
The Nevada Supreme Court will be deciding whether the pharmacies, previously dismissed by the trial court, are liable because they dispense enormous amounts of drugs to Copening that resulted in drug abuse and resulting the fatal accident.
Where the perimeter of liability may end is unknown. Workers' Compensation insurance companies and their integrated pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) dispense many narcotics, on an ongoing basis, for pain relief, to injured workers. The courts may ultimately deem them unprotected by the "exclusivity rule," and they, as ultimate wrongdoers, may become targets for these tragic yet foreseeable events.
To read more about drugs and workers' compensation click here.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
HIPPA Privacy Modifications Under Presidential Emergency H1N1 Flu Order
Under the emergency declaration for H1N1 flu signed by President Obama on October 24, 2009, the HIPPA Privacy rule is not waived according to Federal HHS interpretation; however, "the Secretary of HHS may waive certain provisions of the Rule under the Project Bioshield Act of 2004 (PL 108-276) and section 1135(b)(7) of the Social Security Act."
Those modifications are:
"If the President declares an emergency or disaster and the Secretary declares a public health emergency, the Secretary may waive sanctions and penalties against a covered hospital that does not comply with certain provisions of the HIPAA Privacy Rule:
1. In the emergency area and for the emergency period identified in the public health emergency declaration.
Those modifications are:
"If the President declares an emergency or disaster and the Secretary declares a public health emergency, the Secretary may waive sanctions and penalties against a covered hospital that does not comply with certain provisions of the HIPAA Privacy Rule:
- the requirements to obtain a patient's agreement to speak with family members or friends involved in the patient’s care (45 CFR 164.510(b))
- the requirement to honor a request to opt out of the facility directory (45 CFR 164.510(a))
- the requirement to distribute a notice of privacy practices (45 CFR 164.520)
- the patient's right to request privacy restrictions (45 CFR 164.522(a))
- the patient's right to request confidential communications (45 CFR 164.522(b))
1. In the emergency area and for the emergency period identified in the public health emergency declaration.
2. To hospitals that have instituted a disaster protocol. The waiver would apply to all patients at such hospitals.
3. For up to 72 hours from the time the hospital implements its disaster protocol.
"When the Presidential or Secretarial declaration terminates, a hospital must then comply with all the requirements of the Privacy Rule for any patient still under its care, even if 72 hours has not elapsed since implementation of its disaster protocol.
"Regardless of the activation of an emergency waiver, the HIPAA Privacy Rule permits disclosures for treatment purposes and certain disclosures to disaster relief organizations. For instance, the Privacy Rule allows covered entities to share patient information with the American Red Cross so it can notify family members of the patient’s location. See 45 CFR 164.510(b)(4)."
Monday, October 26, 2009
Denial Rates: An Insurance Company Tactic That Compounds the Health Care Delivery Problem
As Congress considers changes in the nation’s health care program, US health insurance companies continue to be scrutinized. The methodologies of how insurance companies deny claims are being investigated.
A certified nurse assistant, Amelia Mendoza, age 52, of West Covina, California, was attacked twice in the same week by a patient while working at Huntington Hospital in Pasadena earlier this year. Amelia suffered injuries that resulted in her suffering a stroke in April, falling into a vegetative state and contracting pneumonia. The hospital insurance carrier cut off medical care for her, forcing her from the hospital, and leaving her family responsible for medical care for Amelia’s work-related injury that is the hospital’s responsibility.
Her husband, Ralph Mendoza, who met with reporters and supporters outside the hospital, commented, “I am shocked and extremely disappointed that Huntington Hospital would treat Amelia this way. Amelia gave her all to her job for more than six years, and she deserves better….Amelia was injured doing her job, and the hospital has avoided its responsibility for months. I watch my wonderful wife, a mother of four children, slip away in a vegetative state and I wonder whether she would be healthy today if the hospital had met its responsibility. I want the medical care that my wife deserves.”
After an attack by a violent patient, Amelia was examined in the hospital’s Emergency Room and told to return to work. After a second attack just two days later, Amelia went to the Emergency Room and was told to go to Huntington Hospital’s in-house workers’ compensation clinic. The hospital was aware that Amelia’s blood pressure was dangerously high after the attack, and that the patient had infectious diseases. The hospital even called Amelia and her husband to warn of the health dangers Amelia faced. Yet the hospital’s clinic turned Amelia away, saying they were too busy to see her. Amelia suffered a stroke less than three hours later. The attacks had caused bleeding in her brain.
“The workers’ compensation carrier, Sedgwick, has denied liability for Amelia’s medical care, claiming that their investigation did not support a claim of injury and no medical evidence supports the claim either,” said Amelia’s attorney, Chelsea Glauber of the Glauber/Berenson Law Firm. “Medical evidence does in fact exist which states in no uncertain terms that Amelia’s condition was caused by these attacks at work. Amelia is trapped in a horrible hell, between two insurance companies trying to avoid responsibility. So Huntington Hospital let Amelia go home, in a vegetative state, to be taken care of by her husband, who no matter how loving and well intentioned, is not qualified to provide the critical care that Amelia needs and deserves. What does it say about these insurance companies and a hospital that they would treat a hard-working human being in this awful manner?”
A recent report on insurance companies denial rates reveals that, “When it comes to claim denials, insurers may be putting profits ahead of patients’ best interests. Most major insurance companies have reassigned their medical directors—the doctors who approve or deny claims for medical reasons—to report to their business managers, whose main responsibility is to boost profits.”
An inefficient system is not helpful to anyone, including injured workers, insurance companies, and employers. Wasteful administration should be curbed. The U.S. healthcare system wastes between $505 billion and $850 billion every year, recently reported Robert Kelley, vice president of healthcare analytics at Thomson Reuters.
Lawmakers must concentrate the U.S. health debate on how the delivery of medical care can be more efficient and effective. Delays and denials presently occurring in the workers’ compensation system continue to highlight the fact that injured workers need a universal health care system.
A certified nurse assistant, Amelia Mendoza, age 52, of West Covina, California, was attacked twice in the same week by a patient while working at Huntington Hospital in Pasadena earlier this year. Amelia suffered injuries that resulted in her suffering a stroke in April, falling into a vegetative state and contracting pneumonia. The hospital insurance carrier cut off medical care for her, forcing her from the hospital, and leaving her family responsible for medical care for Amelia’s work-related injury that is the hospital’s responsibility.
Her husband, Ralph Mendoza, who met with reporters and supporters outside the hospital, commented, “I am shocked and extremely disappointed that Huntington Hospital would treat Amelia this way. Amelia gave her all to her job for more than six years, and she deserves better….Amelia was injured doing her job, and the hospital has avoided its responsibility for months. I watch my wonderful wife, a mother of four children, slip away in a vegetative state and I wonder whether she would be healthy today if the hospital had met its responsibility. I want the medical care that my wife deserves.”
After an attack by a violent patient, Amelia was examined in the hospital’s Emergency Room and told to return to work. After a second attack just two days later, Amelia went to the Emergency Room and was told to go to Huntington Hospital’s in-house workers’ compensation clinic. The hospital was aware that Amelia’s blood pressure was dangerously high after the attack, and that the patient had infectious diseases. The hospital even called Amelia and her husband to warn of the health dangers Amelia faced. Yet the hospital’s clinic turned Amelia away, saying they were too busy to see her. Amelia suffered a stroke less than three hours later. The attacks had caused bleeding in her brain.
“The workers’ compensation carrier, Sedgwick, has denied liability for Amelia’s medical care, claiming that their investigation did not support a claim of injury and no medical evidence supports the claim either,” said Amelia’s attorney, Chelsea Glauber of the Glauber/Berenson Law Firm. “Medical evidence does in fact exist which states in no uncertain terms that Amelia’s condition was caused by these attacks at work. Amelia is trapped in a horrible hell, between two insurance companies trying to avoid responsibility. So Huntington Hospital let Amelia go home, in a vegetative state, to be taken care of by her husband, who no matter how loving and well intentioned, is not qualified to provide the critical care that Amelia needs and deserves. What does it say about these insurance companies and a hospital that they would treat a hard-working human being in this awful manner?”
A recent report on insurance companies denial rates reveals that, “When it comes to claim denials, insurers may be putting profits ahead of patients’ best interests. Most major insurance companies have reassigned their medical directors—the doctors who approve or deny claims for medical reasons—to report to their business managers, whose main responsibility is to boost profits.”
An inefficient system is not helpful to anyone, including injured workers, insurance companies, and employers. Wasteful administration should be curbed. The U.S. healthcare system wastes between $505 billion and $850 billion every year, recently reported Robert Kelley, vice president of healthcare analytics at Thomson Reuters.
Lawmakers must concentrate the U.S. health debate on how the delivery of medical care can be more efficient and effective. Delays and denials presently occurring in the workers’ compensation system continue to highlight the fact that injured workers need a universal health care system.
"Workers' Compensation" Selected As LexisNexis Top 25 Blogs for 2009
Workers' Compensation blog has been selected as a LexisNexis Top 25 Blogs for Workers’ Compensation and Workplace Issues - 2009, in the Best Individual Bloggers category.
Selections were made by the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation Law Center staff using feedback from community members and Larson’s National Workers’ Compensation Advisory Board members.
The Top 25 Blogs contain some of the best writing out there on workers' compensation and workplace issues in general. They contain a wealth of information for the workers' compensation community with timely news items, practical information, expert analysis, practice tips, frequent postings, and helpful links to other sites. These blogsites also show us how workplace issues interact with politics and culture. Moreover, they demonstrate how bloggers can impact the world of workers' compensation and workplace issues.
Workers’ Compensation
http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/
Published by Jon L. Gelman
"This prolific and widely respected blog analyzes trends and developments in workers’ compensation law nationwide. Workers’ Compensation blog provides both a bird’s-eye view of the national scene and the low down on what’s happening on the ground level in each state."
.............
A Call for Suggestions: Top Blog of the Year - 2009
The next step will be to determine which of the 25 honorees will receive Top Blog of the Year 2009. The LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation Law Center looks forward to hearing the comments of our community members. Deadline for comments is November 11, 2009. The LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation Law Center Staff will review all comments and then select the #1 blog of the year. Register - click here.
To visit the Workers' Compensation Blog click here.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Medicare to Issue Interim Conditional Payment Letters for Medicare Secondary Payer Mandatory Reporting Compliance
Effective October 1, 2009, the MSP Recovery Contractor [MSPRC] will issue information concerning interim conditional payment amounts automatically (that is, without receiving a request for such information) as soon as an interim conditional payment amount is available. If you have an outstanding request for a conditional payment letter (CPL) for a case established prior to October 1, 2009, the request will be processed in the order received. For all new cases, the Medicare beneficiary and any authorized individuals will receive the CPL within 65 days of the issuance of the “Rights and Responsibilities Letter.”
A form "Cover Letter" will be provided to facilitate communications with MSPRC once a case has been established. "This cover sheet is for your use when mailing or faxing in correspondence to the MSPRC. Please retain a COPY of this cover sheet for any future correspondence. The information above will ensure accuracy when handling your case documentation."
The NEW Rights and Responsibilities Brochure is now available on line.
The NEW "Proof of Representation Letter" and "Consent to Release" are also available on line.
For more information about the Medicare Secondary Payer Act and workers' compensation click here.
A form "Cover Letter" will be provided to facilitate communications with MSPRC once a case has been established. "This cover sheet is for your use when mailing or faxing in correspondence to the MSPRC. Please retain a COPY of this cover sheet for any future correspondence. The information above will ensure accuracy when handling your case documentation."
The NEW Rights and Responsibilities Brochure is now available on line.
The NEW "Proof of Representation Letter" and "Consent to Release" are also available on line.
For more information about the Medicare Secondary Payer Act and workers' compensation click here.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
US Supreme Court Allows More Time in RICO Case
Review of a Petition for Certiorari has been delayed by the US Supreme Court. Time has been extended by the Court until November 2, 2009 to file responsive papers to the Petition.
Pending before the US Supreme Court is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a decision where: the employer, insurance company and their experts were found to have conducted themselves in violation of the RICO Act.
Pending before the US Supreme Court is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a decision where: the employer, insurance company and their experts were found to have conducted themselves in violation of the RICO Act.
Click here to see the Workers' Compensation Blog for additional articles on RICO matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)