America seems to be in the midst of a sea change about the concept of personal responsibility.

The latest reminder was the audience response to questions posed to Presidential candidate Ron Paul by moderator Wolf Blitzer at a recent GOP Presidential debate.

Should an uninsured 30 year old with a treatable condition who chose not to have health insurance die? Paul insisted that charity would step up to the plate, but some in the crowd cheered "let him die":
http://elections.americablog.com/2011/0 ... about-sick

In most liberal political philosophic traditions, the common good is best served by social services that fill the void even where individuals make poor choices by design or by default.

The unspoken truth to the Blitzer hypothetical was that as many as half of the population has no health insurance. This includes many who would like to have it but either can not qualify because of preexisting exclusions or who can not pay the premium.

It's not hard to imagine that many of those attending would have cheered
"let him die" even if he had been trying to get insurance.

We're in an era where the people who grabbed lifeboats from the Titanic feel very superior to those who who were not so agile or lucky.

Many of those in the lifeboats, of course, see a populace that is infantilized, expecting some drug to cure them or some program to address their needs. And many of those with chronic needs are seen as having contributed little to the public weal or as having weak ties to the labor market.

But here in the blog let's not get mired in the ongoing national debate about the role of government and the individual. I'm fond of musing about the interplay between larger political and societal trends and workers' comp, but lets' not get too far afield today.

Back to our workers' comp world.

In workers' comp benefits are guaranteed. An inept employee who heads right into a buzz saw will receive guaranteed benefits, including medical treatment, temporary disability monies and a financial settlement depending on the degree of the injury.

In our world employee fault is irrelevant. Co-factors such as smoking, dietary habits, obesity, and other co-existing health conditions may impact the worker's recovery and impact the eventual extent of disability.

There's increasing awareness that many of these problems can increase the cost of claims, affecting the cost of claims.

But there's little attention paid in workers' comp to the concept of personal responsibility.

If you're an attorney, getting a weight loss program for a client authorized is often a major fight. If a client is motivated and wants to go to a gym to get in shape, that's often seen as a personal choice rather than a medical necessity.

So the lines are blurred in workers' comp. What is personal responsibility?
And even if some of these things are personal responsibility, is it in the carriers' financial interest to help?

If you're interested in delving more into different viewpoints on the Ron Paul response to Blitzer, here are 2 different viewpoints:

First, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/opini ... o-die.html
Second, a response from a blog sympathetic to Ron Paul:
http://www.thelibertyvoice.com/media-as ... -target-rp

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com
www.workerscompzone.com

Governor Jerry Brown was quoted this week as saying "I'm going to veto a lot of bills over the next 30 days,"

"So I have to say to some, fasten your seat belt cause this is going to be a rough ride. They've given me 600 bills and there's not 600 problems that we need those solutions for," Brown said.

Will that include workers' comp bills?

Many of the bills headed to Brown's desk involve modest changes that would round off some of the sharp edges of the Schwarzenegger reform years. Brown may be loathe to cross labor and injured worker advocates who worked on the bills. And many of the bills appear to be good from a policy standpoint.

Further, if Brown does veto some or all of the bills, it's unlikely that doing so will give him any significant bargaining chips with a Republican legislative minority that has been almost totally uncooperative with his efforts on the states fiscal crisis to date.

On the other hand, Brown is nothing if not unpredictable. He is likely concerned about any possibility that workers' comp costs will spiral at a time when the economy is weak. He may be concerned about perceptions
about the comp system generally. Workers' comp was never a happy issue for Brown.

Workers' comp never surfaced as a significant issue in the race against Meg Whitman. Aside from some vague comments at occasional fundraisers, I'm not aware of any promises Brown made to any stakeholder groups on workers' comp.

That's what may make his action on the various bills interesting. If there are vetoes it may give us a sense of what Brown is prepared to do with comp overall...whether he is engaged or disengaged on the issues....whether he would encourage stakeholders to reach a more grand compromise on issues involving benefits and cost containment, etc.

I could be way off the mark, but I suspect we'll see a mixed result. Some signings and some vetoes. That's my sense of it.

Here is a link to a post by Wyatt Buchanan in the San Francisco Chronicle, discussing Brown's veto pen:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov ... y_id=97554

Here is a link to a post from last week discussing some of the bills:
http://www.workerscompzone.com/index.ph ... 909-211653

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.workerscompzone.com
www.boxerlaw.com

Most folks are holding on to their wallet, hoping that the housing market does not crater further, taking more homes underwater.

And it's not comforting to see the bond market start to take down the Spanish and Italian economy along with French banks.

It's the world we live in.

Ah, to remember back to the time there was a just war. The War On Poverty.
Some of you may recall Michael Harrington's book, The Other America, written in 1962:
http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/1960s/Othe ... xcerpt.htm

From statistics, it looks like we're devolving back to a land of more poverty.
It's sad, it's shameful, but it could get a lot worse than it is now.

Sabrina Tavernise reports in yesterday's New York Times that:
"Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it."

Here is a link to the poverty statistics on the Census Bureau website:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html

Most everyone reading this blog-whether you are a workers' comp claimant or a workers' comp professional-is involved in a social safety net program, our workers' comp program. It's good to put our program in perspective as we see how the overall social safety net countrywide is doing.

Here is a link to the New York Times piece by Ms. Tavernise:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14 ... amp;st=cse

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
ww.workerscompzone.com
www.boxerlaw.com

Confounding the expectations of many workers' comp pundits, the City and County of San Francisco has filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court in the Ogilvie case.

The Petition for review was filed on September 7,2011.

The argument used by Danny Chou, Chief of Complex and Special Litigation for the City and County of San Francisco, is twofold.

First, the City/County claims that "Allowing injured employees to rebut their scheduled rating by showing that their actual percentage loss of futute earnings is greater than their scheduled rating contravenes the legislature's intent".

Second, the City & County argues that "Because the Court of Appeal decision will significantly increase workers' compensation costs for employers, this petition presents an important question of law that warrants review".

It's discretionary as to whether the California Supreme Court will take the case. Relatively few workers' comp cases are heard by the court. Recently the California Supreme Court refused to entertain an appeal of the California Court of Appeals, 6th District in Guzman.

But it's also worth noting that employers and workers' comp insurers have had several big victories in the California Supreme Court, including the Brodie case on apportionment and the recent Baker case on how pensions are calculated in high-disability cases.

Many observers thought that an appeal to the California Supreme Court would not be filed.

First, the 1st District opinion in Ogilvie actually remands the matter to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for further development of the record. So many believe that the issues are not ripe.

Second, there are some in the employer community who believe that the language in the 1st District Court of Appeals decision will be helpful in defending claims.
Specifically, they believe that the Court of Appeals decision essentially resurrected the concepts of Hertz v. Aguilar, a case that is no longer officially citable.

We should know in about 60 days whether the Supreme Court takes the case. If it does, it could be about two years until a decsion is rendered.

Here is a link to view the 1st District Ogilvie decision which is being appealed:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/do ... 126344.PDF

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.workerscompzone.com
www.boxerlaw.com

The California legislature sprints to the end of its session tonight.

In the next few days we'll see what emerged after various floor votes.

Here are some updates (as of this afternoon) on some bills that were under consideration:

AB 378 (Solorio) (compound drug pricing)
After failing in a vote on 9/7/2011 by a margin of 15-6, with many senators not voting, the bill was amended on 9/8/11. In the 9/7/11 vote, no votes included Democrats Charles Calderon and Gloria Negrete McLeod.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/8/11 clarify the reimbursement rates of physician dispensed compound drugs. The text of the bill as of 9/8/11 can be found here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bil ... n_v94.html

AB 375 (Skinner)(presumption of compensability of MRSA acquired by hospital employees). This bill was scheduled for 3rd reading today.

AB 584 (Fong) (requires UR by California doctors) This bill is headed to the Governor. The bill was passed by the Senate on a vote you can find here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bil ... floor.html

SB 923 (DeLeon) (revision of doctor payment methodology). This bill was amended yet again and here is the version as of yesterday, 9/8/11:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bil ... sm_v92.pdf

An analysis of SB 923 is found here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bil ... floor.html

AB 947 (Solorio) (extends eligibility for temporary disability for up to 240 weeks for certain workers who have had a surgery and whose TD would otherwise expire). This bill will be on its way to the Governor. Here is the vote tally in the Assembly, which passed the bill 49 to 27:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bil ... floor.html

The final analysis of AB 947, which is effective for injuries after 1/1/2012, is here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bil ... floor.html

As I write this, I'm unclear on the status of AB 1155 (Alejo) (outlawing discrimination in apportionment). But it would be surprising if this bill did not sail through both houses of the Capitol.

As noted in my last post, SB 432 (DeLeon) (fitted vs flat sheets) and SB 863
(Lieu) (lien statute of limitations) did not make it through the legislative gauntlet.

Already on the way to the Governor is AB 397 (Monning) (requires contractors to show a valid certificate of insurance or self insurance before renewing contractor license). Also on the way to Gov. Brown is AB 211 (Cedillo) (revision of the job displacement voucher process).

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.workerscompzone.com
www.boxerlaw.com