MSC

[1171]

(07-27-2011 12:13 PM)chrischris Wrote:  

(07-27-2011 11:23 AM)1171 Wrote:  or really level the playing field by requiring that defense attys get the same fee as is paid to worker's atty.
but then again most legislators are attys and they wouldn't want to squeeze their brethren out of such lucrative jobs just to make the system more fair to those on the lower rungs of power.

they would rather spend their time adding another 20 pages to the comp laws just in case some half-way intelligent worker tried to go thru the system by themselves in stead of hiring an atty.
they win both ways: unregulated fees to make more $$ and complexity to require litigation.

the legal system is so rigged-- like the premise of that movie with Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino--Devil's Advocate.

---

Oops! Sorry 1171 I didn't mean to repost your reply. I do have trouble typing replies from my iPhone. It's so easy to hit a wrong symbol. 

California is again looking at WC reform before the increases are passed onto the employer. One of the major cost drivers in the system is litigation. It was suggested that if benefits were paid and medical was not delayed that the need for litigation would drop dramatically.

Of course there are always those that insist on cutting IW benefits to bring down the costs to employers and keep the profits up for the players.

1171, you know the retired judge I'm going to quote who is on the reform committee. He suggested cutting PD to a max of 400 weeks and or cutting off PD at age 65. On the other hand California says we need an increase in the PD amount. So wouldn't this be a give and a take?

Any thoughts on cutting WC costs?

[with the new phones many can get along without a computer..!
poor microsoft-- the PC is in slow decline...]

complexity & lack of knowledge is the main driver of litigation.
simpler rules would also reduce the disputes.

the 2 big cost drivers in california comp are medical & friction costs.
simplifying the comp rules and rolling all medical under one single payer system medical insurance would do wonders for most comp issues.
--just my 2cents.

---

the insurance system in the US rewards and incentivizes the denial of benefits which, in turn, ups the administrative & litigation costs.-- besides making it impossible to price shop/compare --which would lower system costs.
play that model out for 50+ years and you end up here - not a very good direction for a society that has gotten much more complex then what our grand parents faced. a different world;dealing with way different problems.
some parts of our society haven't adapted well to the changes--medical care is one of the biggest laggards.
(typewriters are another.