AMA guide is inconsistent between chapters. Workers who have to take medicine and see a doctor for high blood pressure, but workers who still have to carry out work can no longer do physical work and Egypt can not do her job as a result of injury Career. Assembly workers who have a surgical tunnel and can not return to iterative work may get 5% to 10%, but for workers with very few psychiatric problems get a 25% rating it can.
In short, orthopedic injuries, which are suffering from low-income workers and far more prevalent types of injuries are evaluated very low, and internal and psychological innovation that upper-level workers raise rates There are few problems. There is subjectivity in the guide, there is disagreement between physicians regarding rating. Evaluation also depends on how well doctors understand the AMA Guide well, how doctors willingly give complete disability assessment that accurately reflects injuries of victims as defined in the AMA Guide Varies.
The Secretary-General of the Ministry of Workers' Damage did not use empirical data to determine the adjustment factor of the new permanent disability system required by law to add injuries. Currently, lawyers' attorneys and executives of insurance companies say that I am wrong and the director has used the 2004 report in 2004. There is no merit in this discussion.
First, the Rand Report proposed adjusting the permanent disability assessment schedule of the old system to coordinate between parts of the body. Rand felt that knee injuries were being paid too much and psychological injuries were paid too little. Rand proposed an adjustment to make the schedule more fairly between the body parts.
The configuration used by Rand has nothing to do with the percentage of AMA Guide. The AMA Guide does not address the decline in future profitability. Investigation of Rand 2004 Rand has nothing to do with figuring out factors that change the proportion of AMA to reflect future declining profitability. There is no data to support the current correction factor other than the "policy judgment" of the secretary general.
In fact, the new California Permanent Disability Assessment System is a little problematic AMA system with minor change factors. As a result, permanent disability benefits have been reduced from 50% to 70%. This allows employers and insurance companies to deduct from compensation already already dramatically reduced, such as age, race, gender, nationality, as well as asymptomatic past history, very strict Distribution rules do not take into account worse, and now due to work injury there are symptoms.
The purpose of these changes is to kick out the applicable assistants from the system. Lots of lawyers will also die. As attorneys are removed from the system, it is clear that even more stringent laws further demolish the workers' compensation system. Sometimes, without change, workers will only work as compensation for employer's debt liability (exclusive remedy), actually exclude many of the older employees from the insurance range and benefit mostly It does not provide. Insurance companies already have a tremendous profit. Meanwhile, the bill has been transferred to taxpayers in the form of increased payment for social security obstacles, increased role of Medicare and Medical, and increased use of emergency rooms.
Permanent obstacles are responsible for about 20% or less of all workers. The cost of the compensation system is the key to the overall system. Applicant's lawyer is obliged by the state to be based mainly on permanent obstacles to injured workers. Lawyer costs arise from the recovery of injured workers and are not paid by insurance companies. The goal of employers and insurance companies is to pay permanent disability benefits so that attorneys judge injured workers as unattractive.
As a result, no one will police workers. Compensation system to ensure that injured workers are treated properly and fairly by the system. The reason why lawyers began to be involved in this system was due to insurance industry and employer abuse. Lawyers who began to represent California's workers injured in the 1930s and 1940s escaped the labor movement and were not motivated by expensive fees. The commission is low and most lawyers have shunned the work pursued by these pioneers. These are not "greedy lawyers" but people who want to help injured workers. I am able to know some of these pioneering lawyers.
In the future, the insurance industry and employers will continue abusing the newly discovered power, the system will change to provide equal stadiums of injured workers, or the national health insurance Is in place.
EmoticonEmoticon