With deadlines fast approaching for a proposal to be given to the legislature, the WCAC met once again on Wednesday to discuss the proposed amendments to the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act. Many of the same changes that were discussed at the prior meeting were brought up again.  However, this was first time some of the more radical changes were put into a proposal for the legislation.

In addition to the items I discussed in my prior posts, the WCAC has included in the new round of proposed amendments language concerning the following:

• Dispute Resolution
• Division Separation
• Occupational Injury Leave Act (Workers’ Compensation Collaborative)

Dispute Resolution

The proposed amendments calls for “mandatory” mediation before a formal hearing can be held. Mediation will need to take place within six months from the filing of the petition. Mediation can be performed either through DOLI, OAH or an external neutral mediator.

If parties do not make a “good faith effort” to participate in mediation sanctions can be awarded.

Mediation is not required in cases involving surgery, contribution and reimbursement, penalties, attorney fees, discontinuances and requests for formal hearing under .106.

Division Separation

Under the proposal DOLI would have authority to hear .239 conferences or conferences concerning discontinuance of indemnity benefits.

The Settlement Division, which currently resides at OAH, would be transferred to DOLI.

Occupational Injury Leave Act

The proposed legislation calls for a Workers’ Compensation Collaborative to be established.  This appears to be a voluntary program for employers that an employee would not be able to elect out of. Obviously, this would be different than a union construction program as there would be no negotiated trade offs for the employee or injured worker.

The goals of the collaborative program were set out as follows:

• improved safety programs;
• reduction of injury and illness claims;
• increased access to high quality medical providers and medical evaluators;
• reduction of disputes;
• reduction in the costs of medical and indemnity benefits; and
• increased satisfaction of all parties.

Under the act in order to be an “eligible employee” the employer must have admitted liability and the injury must have caused the employee to miss more than three days of work.

If the employee is “eligible,” the employer shall grant an employee 12 weeks of paid or unpaid leave. Health coverage will also have to be provided during the leave.

The “eligible employee” would be required to only receive treatment with the preselected medial providers.

A ombudsman would be provided to the injured worker. Presently, it is not required that the ombudsman be an attorney or have any specific training in workers’ compensation matters. The ombudsman would act as a neutral, impartial and unaligned participant when providing services to an injured worker. If an ombudsman were to advise an injured worker wrongfully, he or she would not be civilly liable for any action taken in good faith within the scope of the ombudsman’s authority except for willful or reckless misconduct.

As I have discussed almost ad nauseam, most of these amendments are not in the best interest of the injured worker. Most notably, the Workers’ Compensation Collaborative.  Anytime you take away the injured workers’ right to receive medical treatment with a doctor of their choice you take away their right to get better. An injured worker should be able to treat with their doctor or physician with whom they feel comfortable with and not with a so called neutral physician.

Stay tuned for more to come. The next meeting is March 2, 2009 at 9:30.