Workers' Comp Bill Package Offers Fixes to Broken System

Saturday, March 24, 2007 | 0

By Edith Prague

Every working person in Connecticut -- and everyone concerned with workers' rights -- ought to take exception to The Bulletin's Feb. 18 editorial on proposed adjustments to the state's workers' compensation laws. The editorial demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the facts and procedures required before an injured worker receives benefits.

The truth of current state law is frightening: Once an employee is hurt at work, through no fault of his or her own, he or she can lose his job, health insurance for himself and his family and retirement benefits, because an employer is not required to keep an injured employee who can no longer perform his job because of that injury. The benefits to which the editorial so cavalierly refers are in place to provide an injured worker and his or her family a comparable quality of life after a disabling injury.

Since 1913, the workers' compensation system has required employees to give up their right to sue their employers in exchange for a speedy payment of lost wages and medical care. The injured worker is required to prove he made reasonable efforts to find work and cannot due to the injury. It is ludicrous to say commissioners may award these discretionary benefits based upon a "whim."

Discretionary benefits are awarded to an injured worker who suffers a serious, permanent injury and who, as a result, is unable to return to his regular work. This worker could receive partial lost wage benefits for up to 520 weeks, depending on the severity of the injury. The 520-week maximum figure is designed only for the most seriously injured workers, such as paraplegics. That 520-week cap was in effect for many years prior to 1993 reforms, but injured workers rarely qualified.

In recent years, while rights and awards for injured employees eroded, workers' compensation insurance carriers reaped windfall profit. A recent report issued by the Center for Justice & Democracy, citing an actuarial study, made these startling findings:

* During each of the four years after reforms were adopted in 1993, workers' compensation insurers earned after-tax profit of more than 25%.

* Between 1993 and 2004, insurers' after-tax profit in Connecticut averaged 14.7%, more than double the national average of 6.8%.

* From 1993 through 2004, workers' compensation insurance companies earned an after-tax profit of an astonishing $882.53 million.

I can't help but wonder if there's a connection between those statistics and this, because in contrast, the Center for Justice and Democracy and its actuarial study instructively pointed out that in Connecticut, total benefits paid to workers decreased about 39% from 1991 to 2004 as a percentage of payroll.

The editorial also mentions the problem with fraud, without offering any solutions. Unethical claimants are an undeniable problem, but so are dishonest employers who refuse to report an injury, doctors who overtreat or overcharge, and insurance companies that wrongfully deny payment of legitimate claims. The editors did not suggest ways of reducing fraud, but simplistically suggest paying less to injured workers so fraud is reduced. If there is fraud, let's work to eliminate it, not further penalize the injured worker.

We must focus on prevention of injuries, provision of proper and prompt medical care, and reduction in insurance costs. Necessary changes in our workers' compensation system will be the result of constructive dialogue among all parties while our legislative package is considered. An outright rejection, as the Bulletin suggests, would only prolong a system that is unfair and unjust to injured workers.

State Sen. Edith Prague, a Democrat, has represented the 19th District since 1994. She is chairman of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. This column first appeared in the Norwich Bulletin. The newspaper's Web site is http://www.norwichbulletin.com/.

-------------------------------

The views and opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of workcompcentral.com, its editors or management.