Workers Compensation is a beast that is roaring across the country and will shortly be a true henderence in the work force. There will be more and more money spent on WC as this ruling will truely affect the way WC claims will be handled. Now the WC adjusters will be more apt to review bills and records for resonable and necessary as well as usual and customary prior to just paying thinking subrogation will make up for the lack of effort to mitigate.
Hopefully it won’t impact desire for the WC field. CPCU.org has lots of my postings for professional opptys, including WC (direct in Fortune 500 firm).
Does this ruling portend an expansion of a prohibition of subrogation collection in other kinds of cases? The notion that public awards are subject to the review of potential creditors has been a deterrent to suit. As usual, court rulings arise without concern for the multiplicity of unintended effects. It has been said that judges are judgmental: 90% judgment, 10% mental.
To comment on several notes: Ohio WC is a state monopolistic fund. Other than rare self-insurers, the effect of this decision is limited to fund money. Subrogation has been a longstanding point of contention, because it adversely affects members of a well-funded, Organized Labor opposition. This decision is based on WC statutes, so it’s limited to WC subrogation.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Workers Compensation is a beast that is roaring across the country and will shortly be a true henderence in the work force. There will be more and more money spent on WC as this ruling will truely affect the way WC claims will be handled. Now the WC adjusters will be more apt to review bills and records for resonable and necessary as well as usual and customary prior to just paying thinking subrogation will make up for the lack of effort to mitigate.
Hopefully it won’t impact desire for the WC field. CPCU.org has lots of my postings for professional opptys, including WC (direct in Fortune 500 firm).
Does this ruling portend an expansion of a prohibition of subrogation collection in other kinds of cases? The notion that public awards are subject to the review of potential creditors has been a deterrent to suit. As usual, court rulings arise without concern for the multiplicity of unintended effects. It has been said that judges are judgmental: 90% judgment, 10% mental.
To comment on several notes: Ohio WC is a state monopolistic fund. Other than rare self-insurers, the effect of this decision is limited to fund money. Subrogation has been a longstanding point of contention, because it adversely affects members of a well-funded, Organized Labor opposition. This decision is based on WC statutes, so it’s limited to WC subrogation.