Patrick Vitullo Sep 28, 2017 05:04 AM
The interesting comment in this article is the savings to insurers since 1996 v. the proposed Protz rate hike. Anyone in the business knows from discussing IREs with physicians that they are unduly mechanical and do not fairly represent an injured worker's degree of "impairment". Whatever is considered as a substitute must be more realistic and promote a process that is not just impartial but considers the humanitarian intent of the Act. The bargain to the employer and carrier of not being sued at law for work injuries should mean a reasonable consideration of the true scope of injured worker impairment and not have an IRE process that is just another employer savings plan. Patrick Vitullo, Clemens & Vitullo, P.C.