CA FAILED TO INFORM CONSULTANT I HAVE AN ATTORNEY

[inquiringMIND]

I received a call from a man who was not a vocational rehab counselor yet he wanted input from me of my job description duties (DWC FORM RU-91) during the time my injury occurred. He wanted me to sign this form quickly before his 10 day deadline but there were some activities we didn't argree on (ie...how much weight i lift at work etc). when i started asking questions about this process, why he had a deadline and why this was necessary etc, the consultant said i needed to ask my CA. His response made me even more curious.

when this consultant learned that i had an attorney, he genuinely seemed surprised and told me the CA never mentioned i was represented. The consultant apologized and said my AA should be involved in this process and bid me farewell.

im smh now. anybody have an idea what was that REALLY all about? it seemed innocent to me until this guy refused to answer my questions.

[1171]

i think it was really about what was claimed.
some states include vocational rehabilitation benefits as part of workers comp and yours probably does.
I suspect your case was referred out to begin the evaluation process.
when you are represented it's a matter of courtesy to advise the atty.
why do you think there was a different reason?

[inquiringMIND]

(03-20-2012 02:51 AM)1171 Wrote:  i think it was really about what was claimed.

im glad there were witnesses and im glad it was documented when it happened...

some states include vocational rehabilitation benefits as part of workers comp and yours probably does.
I suspect your case was referred out to begin the evaluation process.
usually referred out for what?

when you are represented it's a matter of courtesy to advise the atty.
i didnt think an atty was necessary to review what i do at work but i guess the consultant did

why do you think there was a different reason?

1171- yes, my state does have voc rehab benefits... so i assumed that was why the "consultant" wanted to complete that form (RU-91). When he stated that he was not a VRC, it seemed there may be an unknown reason when this man insisted i sign the form quickly when i suggested i speak with co-workers and my supervisor first regarding
a realistic estimation of how much weight we lift at work.

[Woodlawn]

Ru-91. I'm betting this is California.
There is no voc rehab anymore, just that useless voucher. Have you recently had an ame or qme?

If so, did you file a CT? Sometimes if someone files a CT with multiple body parts the doctor may want it to see if a CT exists and they do that by getting a rehab expert (paid by the ic).

[inquiringMIND]

Ru-91. I'm betting this is California.
YES, ITS CALIFORNIA

There is no voc rehab anymore, just that useless voucher. Have you recently had an ame or qme?
NO AME OR QME

If so, did you file a CT? Sometimes if someone files a CT with multiple body parts the doctor may want it to see if a CT exists and they do that by getting a rehab expert (paid by the ic).
Ohhhhh....I get it. I think you are right on target, Woodlawn.....now that makes sense to me...Yes, CT filed by AA but for one body part. When the consultant denied being a VRC, he said something about a disabilites consultant....claimed to be hired by the adjuster... why cut our conversation short when he learned I had an atty? Is there something on the form the AA might object to if signed this without his approval? i was led to believe it was just a job description of when my injury occurred.