Purchase this story for only $7.99!
Add to CartFor access to all our articles, check out our subscription options.
Oct 24, 2025
This year, AWCP has the privilege of providing a dynamic group of presentations from all different …
Nov 7, 2025
Join Hawai'i’s premier workers’ comp event for expert insights, top-tier networking, and standout …
Mar 25, 2026
Career Services at California Lutheran University presents the Career & Intern Expo 2026, which wi …
3 Comments
Log in to post a comment
Dr Jul 6, 2020 a 1:07 pm PDT
Mark Powell's resume is on target -- undersigned feels that the tortured contract vehicles such as ML 206 re "remedial" reports and paper size disputes show that DWC negotiating was not in good faith or got altered by higher authority after the formal negotiating was concluded. These aspects are discussed in The Weinmann Report (www.politicsofhealthcare.com), July 1 and 3, also submitted to work comp central as "industry insight."
-- Robert L. Weinmann, MD, QME, Editor
-- CSIMS member since 1990
-- Formerly, president, Union of American Physicians and Dentists, UAPD, L 206, AFL-CIO
-- Chair, Cmte on Negotiations, CA Neurology Society
Jacob Rosenberg Jul 6, 2020 a 8:07 pm PDT
The point that illustrates the DWC bias is that every change made to the stakeholder consensus favors payers. Obviously the DWC believes its role is to protect insurance companies.
If they are allowed to continue, there will be an ongoing exodus of QMEs making it harder for injured workers to get benefits.
Ron Perelman Jul 6, 2020 a 10:07 pm PDT
The bias is obvious. The DWC needs to stay out of this until the stakeholders shake hands on a fee schedule. The the DWC should rapidly write the regs. It is that simple. They are a governmental organization. The fee schedule is between the parties that do the work and those who pay for it. The DWC should not care if the parties agree. It is that simple.