The Executive Director of a governmental pool could not understand why the cost of the pool's workers compensation claims was significantly higher than the workers comp claim cost of a second governmental pool operating in the same state. The Executive Director had an inkling the claims handling was not as good, but a claims file audit two year earlier found the claim handling to be good with few exceptions.
Due to the high cost of premiums, pool members were withdrawing from the pool and joining the other pool in the state. The decline in membership in the pool was jeopardizing the existence of the pool. In desperation, the Executive Director sent out a Request for Proposal to various claim file auditors. The claim auditor from two years ago responded with a proposal with the lowest price, significantly lower than the other audit proposals. The Executive Director did something he had never done before, he excluded the low bid proposal.
After interviewing several of the claim file auditors, the Executive Director selected an auditor who demonstrated a keen understanding of the cost of workers compensation. The claims auditor compared the claim handling guidelines of the third party administrator (TPA) with the claim files. The auditor was dismayed by the total lack of compliance by the TPA with their own claim handling guidelines. (WCxKit)
During the course of the claim file audit, the auditor interviewed the Executive Director, the claims manager at the TPA and several of the workers comp adjusters. The reasons the governmental pool had higher than average cost for workers compensation became clear to the auditor. The high cost of claims related directly to decisions the Executive Director had made.
Three years earlier, when the pool was looking to replace the prior TPA, the Executive Director had selected the current TPA because their claims handling proposal had been nearly $250,000 per year lower than the average bid from other TPAs bidding for the business. (The prior TPA had also been chosen based solely on having the lowest price). The claim auditor from two years earlier who had been chosen solely on price quoted had not done an in-depth review of the files and had overlooked various mistakes in the claim file handling.
The TPA, who had bid the job at a flat price for the program, had each workers comp adjuster handling from 175 to 225 files at any one time, a workload the adjusters could not properly handle. If the TPA hired additional adjusters to handle the claims, the TPA would lose money on the program. The low price proposal the Executive Director had accepted did not have any provisions in regards to the number of claims each adjuster would be assigned. (The executed claims handling contract was also silent in regards to the overall claims handling service standards).
The workers comp adjusters had low morale due to their overworked situation. The adjusters did not have time to properly investigate the claims, the adjusters were too busy to assist the pool members on early return to work for the employees, and the adjusters were not working with nurse case managers to control the medical treatment. Most of the workers comp claims were out of control.
The end result of the Executive Director's short term thinking of price only in selecting the TPA was much higher payments on the workers comp claims and a loss of pool members due to the overpayment of claims (resulting in increased pool premiums). The Executive Director saved nearly $250,000 per year by selecting the lowest cost TPA over the average bid of other TPAs. An actuarial study using National Council on Compensation Insurance data estimated that the workers comp claims payments for claims occurring during the year 2007 were nearly $1.7 million higher than the average for other workers in the same NCCI job classification codes. The cost for short term thinking of price only in selecting the TPA? Nearly $1.5 million a year.
The second claims auditor included in his proposal not only a review of the claim files, but also a review of the claims management process. As a result of the claims audit, the following recommendations were made to the Executive Director:
1. The Executive Director should meet with the current TPA, advise the workload of the adjusters was unacceptable and renegotiate the remaining year of the three year contract to provide for proper staffing by the TPA at a profitable level
3. The next TPA should have experience handling governmental pools and be willing to provide contact information for all their governmental pools.
4. When the final 3, 4 or 5 TPA candidates are chosen for the next claims handling contract, comparisons should be made of:
· the average value of closed indemnity claims;
· the average number of days open for the closed indemnity claims;
· the percentage of claims that went into litigation;
· the average settlement cost of litigated claims;
· the amount spent on expenses and the ratio of expense cost to claim cost.
5. The nurse case management should be selected as carefully as the TPA whether provided by the TPA or handled as a separate contract. (WCxKit)
The Executive Director selected the easy way of making a choice of a TPA using only the price for the TPA services. This resulted in an immediate, short term price savings, but a much higher total cost in the long run. When selecting any service provider, an in-depth investigation into the services that will be provided should be made prior to making a decision. A balance between price and quality of service should be reached prior to the start of the service contract.
For those of you who have read to this point, when you speak with Senior Management, trying to sell them on selecting the "best" service, with the most cost-effective outcome, refer to it as "value." The Total Loss Costs will ultimately be lower if you choose the service that provides the best "value."
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. is a national expert in the field of workers compensation. She is a writer, speaker and website publisher. Her expertise is working with employers to reduce workers compensation costs, and her clients include airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing.
Contact: RShafer@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
Join WC Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?homeNewMember=&gid=1922050/
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
WorkCover NSW (New South Wales, Australia) and the Roads and Traffic Authority recently held a free event at Forbes to raise awareness of driver fatigue in long distance trucking.
Finance Minister Michael Daley and Roads Minister David Borger said the awareness day was a joint initiative between WorkCover and the RTA to highlight the safety obligations among all
parties in the transport supply chain. (WCxKit)
Daley said WorkCover has been working closely with the trucking industry, the Transport Workers Union, the RTA and NSW Police to improve truck driver safety.
This event is part of an advisory campaign designed to support the transport and storage industry to improve the safety of drivers and reduce the number of tragic incidents involving long distance trucks,” Daley said.
This campaign has been designed to optimize safety outcomes across the industry and the NSW Government will continue to be instrumental in raising safety awareness and driving change.
Safety “The WorkCover Bus will be on site with Business Advisory Officers and inspectors on board to provide advice to drivers on good fatigue management practices and how to meet regulatory obligations,” he added.
Borger said the Marulan event is the first of five driver awareness days to be hosted at high-traffic RTA checking stations across the state.
All agencies involved in the regulation of fatigue and investigation of these incidents share the same goal of saving lives and reducing fatigue related incidents on Australian roads.
WorkCover NSW and the RTA will continue to play a lead role by working closely with industry to improve workplace safety for long distance truck drivers,” Borger said. (WCxKit)
This is the fifth in a series of advisory days with more than 2,000 trucks driving through previous events held since June.
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. is a national expert in the field of workers compensation. She is a writer, speaker and website publisher. Her expertise is working with employers to reduce workers compensation costs, and her clients include airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing.
Contact: RShafer@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604
. Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
Work comp operates under certain presumptions, one of which is that unless an employer provides information to the contrary there is a near certainty that the workers will have every issue resolved, eventually, in their favor. Even if the information is provided it may be arriving too late to change a judge’s opinion about a claim, if the other side gets its info in first. And there remains the nagging question about why an employer would withhold information that was to its advantage.
The answers lie in the fact that most employers, after they complete a report of injury, think the active role is over. Surely, the carrier or Board will inform them if more is needed.
Almost always, much more IS needed and the employer is the best and/or the ONLY source of such information. But if no one asks, why should the employer volunteer information? Silence in such cases is golden – but not for the employer.
An employer must first realize that every comp claim belongs to it and it alone. A carrier is paid to assist and is a surety for payment – but all expenses will ultimately be borne by the employer – sooner, later and often both.
An employer is not expected to be an expert in comp law or procedure – but they can and should be curious and concerned. Calling the carrier and discussing what documents are available that shed light on an employee’s past known history of claims and injuries or illness is invaluable to a defense, especially if the documents are sent ahead to the carrier in a timely fashion. “Timely,” in this case, means as soon as possible.
A Roman poet once wrote: “words are treacherous companions, but silence is a faithful friend.” Very true, but the poet was writing for the benefit of someone who had something to hide. In work comp, silence is the best friend an incorrect decision against an employer could ever have.
Author: Attorney Theodore Ronca is a practicing lawyer from Aquebogue, New York. He is a frequent writer and speaker, and has represented employers in the areas of workers compensation, Social Security disability, employee disability plans, and subrogation for over 30 years. Attorney Ronca can be reached at 631-722-2100.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
A man who admits exaggerating the effects of a back injury to collect federal workers compensation benefits is ordered to pay nearly $30,000 in restitution and sentenced to five years of probation by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy during a hearing recently in Missoula,
Montana. Note: a federal claim is paid for my "us", the taxpayers!
Prosecutors said the individual collected close $30,000 in workers comp benefits from Homeland Security and the Department of Labor from February 2008 to February 2009 while falsely claiming to be disabled. (WCxKitz) He claimed he injured his back in April 2006 while inspecting luggage in his job as a security officer for the Transportation Security Administration at Gallatin Field Airport near Belgrade.
Officials started investigating the individual when one of his doctors witnessed him walking without problems in a Butte mall.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers’ Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
FREE WC IQ Test: http://www.workerscompkit.com/intro/
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers' comp issues.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com
Stimulus-Causing Physical Injury
The heart attack of a worker who experienced a "panic attack" after a malfunctioning elevator's series of "drop and catch" episodes, was found compensable in Speed v. Securitas USA, 989 So. 2d 710 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008).
The claimant worked as a security guard and on the date of the incident was assigned to secure one of the employer's facilities. The elevator in which the claimant was riding malfunctioned, resulting in a series of "drop and catch" episodes. The claimant suffered what he described as a panic attack and reported to a colleague that he felt chest pain. After the chest pain persisted, the claimant went to the hospital and was diagnosed with a mild heart attack. The claimant's independent medical examiner (IME) testified that the major contributing cause of the heart attack was the elevator incident. (WCxKitz)
The employer and carrier denied the claim on the basis that Florida does not allow recovery for "mental-mental" claims. The JCC agreed, finding that on the basis of the claimant's description of experiencing a panic attack, he had sustained a mental or nervous injury that was not compensable. The court of appeal reversed, holding that it was undisputed that the elevator incident, a workplace accident, was the cause of claimant's heart attack. See Ch. 56, § 56.02[3] n.23.1.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/workerscompensationlaw/
© Copyright 2010 LexisNexis. All rights reserved. This material is excerpted from Larson’s Workers Compensation Law. Reprinted with permission.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
Nearly one in ten British businesses are failing to meet their legal responsibilities to protect their workforce's sight, a new study commissioned by national sight charity the Eyecare Trust and healthcare provider Simply health found.
"Screen fatigue" is regularly suffered by 90% of office workers, and the symptoms include headaches, sore or tired eyes, impaired color perception and blurred vision. During their working life, the average office worker will spend 128,740 hours staring at a screen. (WCxKit)
The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) regulations place a legal obligation on all employers to make sure they care for the eye health of staff who regularly use a VDU (computer screen) at work in order to combat the visual stress associated with prolonged screen use.
There is no eye care policy at all amongst one in ten businesses, while regular sight tests, which forms the most basic element of the legislation, are not provided by 44% of employers, the ScreenSmart study found.
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. is a national expert in the field of workers compensation. She is a writer, speaker and website publisher. Her expertise is working with employers to reduce workers compensation costs, and her clients include airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing.
Contact: RShafer@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
Join WC Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?homeNewMember=&gid=1922050/
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
According to sentencing papers a former mail carrier was vacationing on the government's dime. The Daytona Beach News-Journal reports that between 2005 and 2009, the woman collected close to $200,000 in disability pay while doing a number of different sporting activities. Keep in mind, this is OUR money, us taxpayers…
She pleaded guilty to theft of government funds and 16 other felony counts involving workers compensation fraud. The guilty plea led to a sentence of 18 months in prison, followed by three years' supervised release. (WCxKit)
The woman, who moved to the United States from England in 1990, became a citizen and got a job with the post office three years later.
Prosecutors said the woman stopped working at the Port Orange Post Office in 2005 when she injured her neck while picking up a tray of mail. Placed on disability status, she was offered a desk job in early 2009. She didn't take the position because of her injury, according to records.
At a hearing in January in federal court prosecutor Bishop Ravenel told the judge postal authorities became suspicious when they sent the woman fake promotional questionnaires. The "direct mail" fliers asked her about activities she "enjoyed."
"The idea was, if somebody indicated an activity which was different from what they said their limitation was," the prosecutor stated, "you'd have a pretty good idea they were defrauding the government."
Investigators said they learned the woman had acquired a real estate license and was working after she went on disability. She traveled to China, New Zealand, and rode on expensive boats. When a search warrant was served at her home last year, investigators said they found more evidence of fraud than they expected. (WCxKit)
"During the time period in which she's supposed to be permanently disabled, we have a video of her doing a back flip off a trapeze," the prosecutor noted.
At her sentencing hearing, the woman admitted she did not report outside income or improvement in her medical condition saying, "I rode on a horse. I rode on a jet boat. I purposefully did not exert an excellent effort when I took a functional exam. I take full and complete responsibility."
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD is President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. is a national expert in the field of workers compensation. She is a writer, speaker and website publisher. Her expertise is working with industry employers to reduce their workers compensation costs, and her client base includes airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. Contact: RShafer@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com
Have you ever wondered “How in the world did the TPA (third party administrator) come up with their pricing for our workers compensation claims?” If so, you are not alone. This article looks at some of the pricing mechanisms used by TPAs and the benefits and negatives of the varying approaches to pricing.
Value vs. Price - One thing to note is consideration of low-cost prices up front vs. solid, quality over the long run. Like in all things, quality costs more. There's no way a company can get the best service at the lowest price. For 25 years, I've watched companies WANT the higher quality service, then select the low-ball price. They pay for this in the long run because when adjusters handle more claims in less time, quality suffers; they simply can't spend as much time on your claims as they need to. "Select Value Vs. Price" and you'll save money in the long-run. We're preparing a more expansive article on how the wrong decision now will cost more in the long run. Watch for the upcoming article.
TPAs use many approaches to price for the claim handling services. The most common ones are:
1. Time and expense
2. Flat rate per file
3. Flat rate per program
4. Cost plus billing
Time & Expense
Three decades ago, almost all claims handled by TPAs were handled on what was referred to as Time & Expense billing. The workers comp adjuster entered the nature of the activity on a time sheet and the amount of time each activity took to complete. The amount of time billed to the client was usually shown in tenths of an hour. Hence if the adjuster worked 5 minutes on a file, one-tenth (.1) was entered on the time sheet or if the adjuster worked a half hour, five tenths (.5) was put on the time sheet. Expenses for long distance phone calls, postage, photocopies, faxes, etc. were entered on the time sheet in a separate column for expenses. (Most defense attorneys still use this system).
The benefits of the time and expense system to the self-insured or an insurer utilizing a TPA was the exact accounting of what was done on the file. The time and expense billing method has fallen out of favor due to inappropriate billing by some greedy TPAs. For example — while the preparation, taking and writing up the employee's recorded statement was actually thirty-five minutes, instead of billing six-tenths (.6), TPAs would bill for 1.0 hours or some other number higher than the actual time. Also, if the TPA's adjuster billed the actual time, but was not very efficient in his work, the insurer or self-insured was paying for the adjuster's inefficiency. (WCxKit)
[Note: As a consultant who is often asked to bill my time, I know it’s not an easy task, and there is set up and admin time that has to be put somewhere, then all the phone calls back and forth that never connect. It’s easy for the party paying the bills to scrutinize the bills without taking those things into consideration, which is why I prefer “project pricing,” but back to the issue of TPA billing… ]
While all TPAs still offer the time and expense billing method, it is seldom utilized today. When it is utilized, there is a strong trust between the self-insured or insurer and the TPA.
Flat Rate per File
In the 1980's self-insureds and insurers who had doubts about the accuracy of the time and expense billing method started looking for a different way to pay for their workers comp claims to be handled. A new method of billing per file was developed to replace the time and expense method of billing. The TPAs added up the total number of claims they had handled and the total fees they had earned using time and expense billing. Based on these numbers they were able to determine the average amount they would charge for a medical only claim and the average amount they would charge for a lost time claim.
Using the averages from time and expense billing, TPAs started offering to handle each claim for a flat rate per file. This allowed the self-insured or the insurer to know exactly what each claim was going to cost for claim handling. Flat rate per claim file billing worked great on the self-insured's and insurer's liability claims, but not so well on the workers comp claims. The TPAs learned there are a lot more “legacy files” (files that never close or go away) in workers comp than there are in liability.
As TPAs lost money on the legacy files, they looked for a better billing solution. One approach was to change the flat rate per file, to a flat rate for a specific time frame (frequently two years), with an additional flat rate being charged if the file remained open beyond the initial time frame. As the legacy files got even older, the TPAs started charging an additional flat rate after each time frame expired and a new time frame began.
When insurers and self-insureds saw the additional flat rates being charged on legacy files, where the workers comp adjusters had less work to do then they did during the initial time frame, they asked for the second and subsequent flat rate billing to be at a lesser amount, and some even wanted to go back to time and expense billing for the legacy claims.
Flat Rate per Program
As insurers and self-insureds were unhappy with time and expense billing, and as flat rate billing per file had its problems, the concept of billing one overall flat rate for a period of time came into being. Based on the self-insureds or insurers previous number of claims per year, the TPAs agreed to handle all claims generated by the insurance program in exchange for a set payment, usually paid in installments monthly or quarterly. For example, the self-insured would agree to pay the TPA a total of $500,000 for one year of claim service with the TPA expecting to receive 300 lost time claims and 1,000 medical only claims.
Like other billing methods, the flat rate per program billing method also had its problems. If the expected number of claims was exceeded, the TPA would lose money and not be happy. If the expected number of claims was not reached, the self-insured would be unhappy, feeling they had over paid for the claim handling.
Cost Plus Billing
In the never-ending search for a fair billing method, the latest approach being used by more and more TPAs with the approval of the self-insureds or insurers is the cost plus billing method. In this approach the TPA tries to quantify its actual annual cost for salaries (adjusters, clerical, supervisors, management involved in the program) plus overhead, taxes, business acquisition, and all other expenses of operating the business. Once the accountant has established what is believe to be the exact cost of providing adjuster X (or adjusters X, Y, Z, etc.), an additional amount is added on for profit.
For example: Based on the previous loss history, the TPA believes two adjusters should be able to handle all of the claims on a program. The salary for the two adjuster equals $100,000 combined. A prorated share of the salary for clerical, supervisors and management is calculated. A prorated share of the company's overhead, taxes, business acquisition and other expenses is calculated. The cost of operating the business over and above the adjuster's salary is estimated at another $100,000. The total cost of handling the claims will be $200,000. To this amount is added a profit margin – let’s say 15% or $30,000 ($100,000 + $100,000 X 15%). The cost plus billing method would equal a total billing by the TPA of $230,000 for a year of claim service. (WCxKit)
Summary
Most TPAs will refer to their billing arrangement with your company as “client specific fee arrangement” meaning they may be charging you more or less for the same services than they are charging your competitors for workers comp claim handling based on factors that may be specific or customized for your situation. It is imperative you have a complete understanding of the billing method that will be utilized on your company's claims. Regardless of the billing method your company and the TPA negotiates and agrees to, the contract to handle your company's claims should be in writing.
If you don’t understand it, ASK! You need to know how it works so you feel comfortable with the arrangement. The TPA does not want you to feel like you are being gypped , they want you to feel you are getting good value for your money.
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD is President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. is a national expert in the field of workers compensation. She is a writer, speaker and website publisher. Her expertise is working with industry employers to reduce their workers compensation costs. Over the past 25 years, her clients have included airlines, healthcare, manufacturing, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing.
Contact: RShafer@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
WC Roundtable LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?homeNewMember=&gid=1922050/
WC Calculator: http://www.LowerWC.com/calculator.php
TD Calculator: http://www.LowerWC.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculator.php
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers' comp issues.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com
A woman's “bystander exposure” to asbestos from washing her husband's work clothes for more than three decades substantially contributed to her mesothelioma, according to a New Jersey appellate court that ruled in upholding a $7.5 million jury award.
According to BusinessInsurance.com, the ruling in Bonnie Anderson vs. A.J. Friedman Supply Co. Inc. backed up a jury award of $7 million for Anderson and $500,000 for her husband, plus prejudgment interest.
The couple proceeded with product liability litigation naming several defendants who manufactured and supplied asbestos, but they went to trial only against Exxon Mobil Corp. after claims against the manufacturers were dismissed.
The plaintiffs alleged that Anderson contracted mesothelioma from one or a pair of sources of asbestos exposures: her own 12-year employment working at an Exxon refinery and from laundering her husband's asbestos-laden work clothes during his employment with Exxon from 1969 to 2003, according to court records.
Among other defenses, Exxon argued that Anderson's claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions in New Jersey's workers compensation law.
However, the appellate division of the Superior Court of New Jersey agreed with a trial court report that a “dual persona doctrine” is in effect when an employer undertakes “a completely separate and independent role with respect to the employee,” as was the case with Ms. Anderson's non-occupational asbestos exposure.
In 2001, Anderson began having severe stomach pains and swelling. After a CT scan showed fluid in her abdomen, she had exploratory abdominal surgery. During the laparotomy, the surgeon removed six quarts of fluid, saw "multiple tumor implants," which he described "as a carpet-like implant on the pelvic peritoneum and other implants on the bowel [and] in the omentum." The surgeon diagnosed her with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma.
To see more on this case, visit: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a5892-07.pdf
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. is a national expert in the field of workers compensation. She is a writer, speaker and website publisher. Her expertise is working with employers to reduce workers compensation costs, and her clients include airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing.
Contact: RShafer@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
Join WC Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?homeNewMember=&gid=1922050/
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
More than a year after hearings got under way, a labor arbitrator has ruled against a trio of chaplains who complained their boss, a priest at St. Boniface General Hospital (Winnipeg), bullied them.
According to The Canadian Press, arbitrator Arne Peltz reported in his 140-page decision that the complaints of harassment and abuse "were entirely without merit.''
Peltz also commented the complainants, a non-denominational minister, a Roman Catholic nun and a priest, should ask Father Gerry Ward for forgiveness. (WCxKit)
He says Rev. Carlyle Murrell-Cole, Sister Jeannine Corbeil and Father Roland Lanoie should search their hearts and reflect deeply on the moral quality of their actions.
The three each sought a month off, $10,000 and disciplinary action for Ward, the director of spiritual care services at the hospital.
According to the trio, Ward verbally abused them, threatened to undermine their careers, and then labeled them as troublemakers.
"At the very least, these three chaplains owe the hospital and Father Ward a public apology,'' Peltz concluded. “ After the unrelenting and unfair attack he has sustained, I hope Father Ward can forgive them.''
The chaplains are still employed in the spiritual care department.
In his decision, Peltz said their complaints were "frivolous and vexatious'' and "blown out of proportion.''
Corbeil testified that Ward referred to the department as a "kindergarten'' and a nuclear medicine specialist as "the lady who glows in the dark.''
She said Ward informed her that her large size intimidated a chaplain and her temper had others referring to her as Attila the Nun.
Lanoie questioned why he wasn't getting his work schedule sent to him electronically anymore, and Ward informed him it was because Lanoie was rude to his assistant.
Ward's assistant informed the hearing she didn't know anything about it and that she hadn't reported to Ward that Lanoie was rude to her.
After Murrell-Cole was elected as the chaplains' union representative, he was removed from his long-held position as the psychiatric unit's chaplain.
Murrell-Cole complained he was reassigned to a greater workload and a desk he had to share with other chaplains.
The hospital defended Ward, arguing the trio turned out to be unhappy employees resistant to change who challenged their boss's authority.
In 2008, they filed a grievance against Ward. The hospital's head of human resources looked into their claims and brought in an outside consultant who said the chaplains were the problem, not their boss, the hospital's lawyer Ken Maclean said during the hearings.
Ward walked into a "very troubled workplace . . . with problematic communication . . . He was hired to end that discord,'' Maclean commented. (WCxKit)
The labor arbitrator, who listened to the two sides over the course of a year, said in his award that Ward had his work cut out for him when he was brought on in 2005.
"The evidence revealed a picture of an exasperated (spiritual care) director who was facing intractable conflict including intemperate, sometimes insubordinate conduct by part of his staff,'' Peltz wrote in his decision.
"The grievers were ungovernable but Ward and (human resources) persisted in efforts at counseling, coaching and mediation, rather than discipline.''
Still, Peltz ordered the hospital to pay $2,500 in compensation to Murrell-Cole after he was shuffled out of his position in the psych ward, his original position. Peltz said while the hospital was acting in good faith it was in violation of the grievance investigation process.
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. is a national expert in the field of workers compensation. She is a writer, speaker and website publisher. Her expertise is working with employers to reduce workers compensation costs, and her clients include airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing.
Contact: RShafer@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
Join WC Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?homeNewMember=&gid=1922050/
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
Posted in
Broker Issues & Relationships, Insurance Issues, Rates, Premiums, Lowering Premiums & Experience Mod |
