SAN FRANCISCO — As the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau sought to explore the implications of emerging technologies on future medical care and labor relations during its annual conference on Thursday, a Southern California attorney identified two fixes to the more immediately pressing issue of extraordinarily high administrative expenses.
Saul Allweiss
Tony Milano, actuarial vice president for the WCIRB, said it now costs 53 cents to deliver $1 of benefits to injured workers in California. For comparison, he said it costs about 18 cents for private health insurers to deliver $1 of benefits, and 2 cents for Medicare.
Using data from the Workers Compensation Research Institute and the National Council on Compensation Insurance, he said that in a middle-of-the-road state, ultimate allocated loss-adjustment expenses and medical-legal costs are about $5,600 per indemnity claim. In California, ultimate ALAE and med-legal costs per indemnity claim is about $18,000.
Defense costs average $2,700 per claim in a median-cost state, compared to $9,000 in California. In the median state, medical cost containment is about $1,500 per claim compared to $3,200 in California. And medical-legal costs average $500 in the median state, and $2,600 in California.
Cumulative trauma claims are one reason for the high administrative expenses in California, Milano said. The proportion of indemnity claims alleging a cumulative injury increased from 12.4% in 2010 to 19% in 2014. And the proportion of cumulative trauma claims with administrative expenses greater than $1,000 increased from 58% to 64% over the same period.
Milano said it’s a triple whammy. California has more cumulative trauma claims than other states and are more expensive in general, and they have higher loss-adjustment expenses than other claims.
Saul Allweiss, a workers’ compensation defense attorney with the Law Offices of Allweiss and McMurty, said he thinks lawmakers should consider a higher causation standard for cumulative trauma claims as well as an outright ban on most post-termination claims.
Allweiss referred to what he said was a real-world case — using the fictitious name of Jane Doe as the claimant working for fictitious employer Innocent Bystander Inc. — to illustrate the problem.
Jane Doe asked for two weeks of vacation shortly after she was hired. Her employer denied the request, but she takes off anyway and is fired.
A month later, the 31-year-old Jane Doe had an attorney and filed a claim alleging cumulative injuries to her fingers, hands, wrists, elbows, shoulders, neck, back, hips, legs, knees and gastrointestinal system — “what we lovingly call in Southern California a skin-and-contents claim,” Allweiss said.
The Labor Code prohibits workers from filing comp claims after they’ve been fired. But Allweiss said this isn’t much protection for cumulative trauma claims because of a loophole in Labor Code Section 5412 that requires a worker to know about an injury for the post-termination bar to apply.
“The standard is, the injured worker is not charged with knowledge until they see an attorney, which is always after they were terminated,” he said.
At her first exam, Jane Doe gets a prescription for physical therapy, chiropractic care, opioid painkillers, sleeping pills and an anti-inflammatory. Medical costs climb as Jane continues to treat outside the employer’s network because the insurer is investigating the claim.
Allweiss said the cost of these types of cumulative trauma claims can approach or exceed $100,000, and at some point, carriers have to seriously consider trying to settle the case for “nuisance value” of $10,000 or $15,000.
“This, to me, is the anatomy of what the problem is in Southern California,” he said. “These are the cases that are driving all the behavior.”
One solution would be for lawmakers to establish a predominant causation standard for post-termination cumulative trauma claims, according to Allweiss.
Right now, the injured worker has to show that only a fraction of the injury was caused by work for the claim to be compensable. Allweiss said requiring workers to prove 51% of a post-termination cumulative trauma claims are related to work would eliminate some of the questionable claims.
He also recommended using evidence-based medicine to determine causation. Doctors sometimes rely on intuition when determining causation, he said. They’ll assume that sitting all day causes back problems or that using a computer causes carpal tunnel syndrome, when there is growing evidence that neither is correct.
“If you require the doctor to look at evidence-based studies and combine that with a predominant cause standard, I think you might have effective tools to get rid of the problematic CT claims,” he said.
Jun 11-13, 2025
For two decades, CCWC has assembled the key players in the workers compensation arena for what is …
Jun 14-28, 2025
Course Description: This 3-part series instructed by experienced workers compensation attorney an …
Sep 2-4, 2025
We are thrilled to announce that Early Bird registration is OPEN for ELEVATE 2025! This year's …
7 Comments
Log in to post a comment
Charles Cleveland Jun 16, 2017 a 7:06 am PDT
Punishing injured workers is not the solution. Most injured workers are not aware of their rights or the complicated nature of a cumulative trauma claims. Most injured workers are afraid to report these types of injuries and most times it is not reported until after they are terminated or their injury becomes too much to bear. Also this analysis does address the number one cost driver in the system which is cost containment. Law enforcement efforts are effectively addressing the bad apples who are filing these frivolous continuous trauma cases as well as pending legislative efforts targeting these types of filings. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater would ultimately harm a lot of legitimately injured workers who are generally legally unsophisticated to the often arcane and intricate rules of workers compensation.
Jun 17, 2017 a 8:11 pm PDT
The author contends that the rather fundamental due process requirement that the injured employee possess knowledge of a work-related injury presents an outrageous legal loophole(.) Are substantive and procedural due process rights of claimants unjust legal loopholes that the legislature should obliterate further?
Jeffrey Dauer Jun 16, 2017 a 11:06 am PDT
"These are the cases that are driving all the behavior."
Extreme cases make bad law. He's describing a farcical situation that is obviously abusive and falsely analogizing it to all CT claims.
Jun 16, 2017 a 2:06 pm PDT
[deleted]
Jesse Marino Jun 16, 2017 a 3:06 pm PDT
With all due respect to my esteemed colleague Saul Allweiss, Esq., whom I know to be a very competent, ethical and moral attorney – his proposed hypothetical is missing the beef!
I have never seen a case in 27 years of applicant and defense work where a CT was filed after 2 weeks of employment and termination post request for a vacation. But assuming this scenario occurred; it is definitely not the norm and an extreme example.
I proposed we add another layer of analysis and not simplify this issue.
Let’s assume John Doe (a long term employee) requested the “vacation” because he is tired and in pain. This employer does not post the legally required notices that will enable the applicant to know his rights. The employer sees the applicant in pain while working. The employer smelling an injury is in the works fires the applicant before he can file a claim.
This scenario happens every day.
Making the applicant establish a predominant causation standard for post-termination cumulative trauma claims, creates more litigation not less. A new rule or standard will not detour my office from filling these claims!
The legal battle is different as instead of having to navigate the alleged “loophole in Labor Code Section 5412 that requires a worker to know about an injury for the post-termination bar to apply” we will fight about the predominant causation standard instead. Nothing changes but the reason for the battle, the battle rages on.
The result will be that we deny more claims and run up more attorney fees. No cost savings there, just a reallocating of expenditures!
This writer feels that the reason CT’s are up is because we are all trying to avoid Benson and not file too many specific injury claims and lumping all injuries into one CT.
Statistical Question:
Are post termination CT fillings up with “mom and pop” employers only or with large corporations/employers as well? I feel that this occurs mostly with the small employers that skirt the rules and do not tender timely claim forms and or post notices for their employees to know the rules before they are terminated. This is inherently unfair.
I believe that if an employer does not tender a claim form and or post statutorily required information it is a denial of benefits and constitutes fraud! Why are District Attorneys not prosecuting them? Let’s be real and look at both sides of the coin or at least put some beef in our burger patties!
Jun 16, 2017 a 5:06 pm PDT
[deleted]
Howard Stevens Jun 17, 2017 a 10:06 am PDT
I spent 36 years as a defense attorney in Southern California before opening an applicant's practice 14 months ago. Some of my clients have reinforced what I already suspected or knew from some of my defense work: There are dishonest employers who terminate people who make statements to management that should prompt advising the employee of the right to file a claim, and then tell the carrier it is a post-term claim about which they knew nothing. There are also employees that legitimately did not know they had an impairment connected to work until after they retired or otherwise terminated (see LC 5412). These employees need protection and should not be the babies that are tossed out with the bath water if/when the c/t rules are changed.