Calif. Supreme Court Rejects Third Lawsuit Against Workers’ Comp Issues

July 14, 2005

  • July 14, 2005 at 2:38 am
    compman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    And its a SWING and a MISS. Strike three for the trial lawyers. Too bad we can’t just whack them on the nose like a bad puppy and they would go back to harassing someone else.

  • July 14, 2005 at 4:17 am
    Three cheers for compman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree, however…we should SMACK them on the back of the head instead of on the nose. Might do more good?

  • July 14, 2005 at 5:19 am
    Wet Carpet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    No, if you smack them on the nose, they will wet on the carpet.

  • July 15, 2005 at 7:35 am
    Peggy Sugarman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The article about the Supreme Court’s rejection of our lawsuit wrongly implies that the court made the decision on the merits of the case. Ken Gibson of AIA should know this — as should the Insurance Journal. The court’s decision simply means that the regulations must be challenged through the WCAB, not civil court. It is a jurisdictional issue. Given the backlog at the Supreme Court, this may be the more expeditious approach. Cases are being prepared to insure that the WCAB addresses this important issue as soon as possible.

    As far as Mr. Gibson’s comment, the CAAA knows that the primary beneficiary of permanent disability benefits is, and always has been, the injured worker. The Rand Interim Report on PD showed that the former PD schedule was, overall, inadequate. This schedule reduces the former amounts to a shockingly low level and ignores the statutory mandate to base the schedule on the Rand Interim Report.

    The Insurance Journal should also know that VotersInjuredatWork.org is an organization of injured workers. We receive funding from our injured worker members as well as a variety of other sources — including defense attorneys who are ashamed of the way workers in California are being treated and physicians who are fed up with not being able to get medical treatment for their patients.

    The Insurance Journal should be paying attention to who is really reaping the profits in California’s system: insurers who are making record profits and defense attorneys who get paid by the hour to litigate and who have traditionally been paid about 50% more than worker advocates.
    Peggy Sugarman, Executive Director
    VotersInjuredatWork.org

  • July 15, 2005 at 7:47 am
    compman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Peggy:

    VIAW and yourself are nothing more than paid frontmen for the CAAA. If I were in your shoes, I would be ashamed of myself. Then again, I would never be in your shoes.

  • July 16, 2005 at 12:27 pm
    Vateor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is about time that Ms. Sugarman and her friends at the California Applicants’ Attorneys Association quit trying to trick the court. They are apparently afraid to address the issues in a proper forum.

    Surely they are good enough lawyers to understand what is the proper forum, or is it that they are just using the courts to further their political goals.
    It is clear that VIAW is sponsored by the CAAA and this in itself needs to be addressed by someone from an ethical standpoint.

    The Workers’ Comp Executive http://www.wcexec.com has free flash reports that provide a lot of information about CAAA and VIAW. They broke the story about the connection and payments between CAAA and the VIAW.

  • July 23, 2005 at 10:59 am
    Sandra Wood says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mrs. Sugarman and the CAAA attorneys are the only people who have compassion and understand the real issues of the workman’s compensation system.

    It is too bad that there are so many cowards out there that bash good hardworking people like Mrs. Sugarman and the the trial attorneys (CAAA) who truely represent injured workers as they hide behind names such as wet carpet and compman and are afraid to use their real names.

    If we had a good workman’s compensation system there would not be so many suicides of injured workers. And it is too bad that people with greedy trashy minds do not take the time to properly educate themselves on the system such as compman and wet carpet.

  • July 27, 2005 at 4:14 am
    compman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sandra: Please advise as to where you got your lobotomy as I know my father in law is in need of one. I can’t believe that you think the CAAA is only looking out for workers, give me a break. Their gravy train is getting derailed and they are trying everything in their power to get it back on track. They don’t care anymore about their clients than I care about them. They are only after the money. Show me an attorney with a conscience, and I will show you an unemployed attorney.

  • August 1, 2005 at 9:26 am
    Sandra Wood says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dear Compman,

    It’s too bad that people who do not live in the real world such as yourself admit to it by hiding behind ficticious names.
    It is also too bad that in your imaturity your obiously only care to vent anger at anyone who does not agree with you even if you know nothing about the subject.

    With your visual written insults tells me you have a mind dirtier than the sexual anatomical parts of a male pig and you take pride in using it when ever you want.

    Your first mistake I am not paid. And I am glad you do not want to be in my shoes because you are a very inhumane individual. No one in our organization is paid. Secondly, CAAA attorneys make a lot less than defense attorneys and do not get paid until the case is over. If they loose the case they do not get any money at all. And by the way we are a nonprofit organization dependent upon dues and donations.

    Defense attorney’s get paid right up front at 200 dollars an hour. It is to the benefit of defense attoneys to drag cases out for years which are your attorneys compman.

    There are hundreds of cases also where it is several thousnds of dollars cheaper to treat the individual medically instead of denying medical care and draging it out in the long run.

    My case for exapmle. If my employer had listened to me and given me the medical care I needed, it would have only cost them $3,000.00’s total and I could have gone back to work after 6 months.

    In stead I was kept out of work permanently, my employer hid information from me and in the long run it cost them $60,000.’s for my case. Tell me compman where did you go to school because your Math skills are in the toilet.

    If I were an employer I would much rather pay my employee’s medical bills for $3,000.00’s and save $57,000.00 than pay $60,000.00 on a claim to settle out of court.

  • August 2, 2005 at 11:28 am
    Sandra Wood says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dear Compman-
    I am so sorry you do not under stand my e-mails at all. Your Cum Laude degree and long line of attorneys means mothing to me.

    My background – my grandfather was one of the three founders of Blue Cross Health Insurance in the 1930’s, was responsible for drugs being able to be bought by their generic name saving patients thousands of dollars, was the first man to be let in behind the iron curtain to study medical care in Russia, was a hospital administrator for 48 years, directed and produced the first medical movie ever made in American history which was shown at the world’s fair on Treasure Island in San Francisco and was knighted into the order of St. John by the Queen of England for his medical contributions to the world. My father was a hospital administrator and ran two acute hospitals and 10 nursings homes in the bay area. I know more about medicine than you think.

    You misread my entire response because your response does not make sense. From what I understand from your responses to Peggy, you don’t care about the injured worker at all and condone the fraud committed by the insurance companies to the employer and injured worker. You are against quality medical care for people injured on the job and do not care if they are kicked out onto the streets.

    The $3,000.00 dollars is the amount my medical care would have cost for actually 12 months for my back injury. I was kept out of work for two years when I could have gone back to work on modified duty after one week. But I settled out of court with my employer for college and will never be allowed to work for them again because of my settlement. You try living on 33 dollars a day for two years. You can’t pay your bills on that being single. And some of that 60,000 went to my attorney, some to clean up outstanding bills and my employer still has not paid medical bills to my doctor’s practice which was a condition of my compromise and release.

    Voters injured at work is a nonprofit organization working on reinstating quality medical care for the injured worker. Voters injured at work is about medical care, not suing employers and insurance companies. And no one not even myself gets paid a penny except for one office staffer. Everyone else works for free. Becarful on what you answer if you do not know all the facts about something.

    I am also a hospital administration major and accounting undergrad. I will be building two medical centers to treat both injured people on and off the job. My job is to make people better and not rip off the employers with outrageous premiums like the workcomp carriers do and then don’t pay out on medical claims. And I do buy several people medical aids who can not afford them so they will not be in so much pain.

    I meant visual in my comments. My comments can’t be immflamatory to you because you have no real name. I know what a lobotomy is and you did not use the word in the proper context. I think I would like talking to your father-in-law better. He probably can be reasoned with.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*