ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, March 26, 1997 TAG: 9703260008
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-14 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: SUSAN WIRT
ANITA B. Lawrence is right: The Virginia Workers' Compensation Act isn't perfect (March 4 commentary, ``Virginia should reform workers-compensation law''). However, it works quite well for the vast majority of those injured in the workplace.
Of course, many would agree with Lawrence that the case involving James Smith appears to be one that was handled inappropriately and unjustly. Yet, as she stated, the case is complex and has multiple issues - and I suggest that a just and informed opinion cannot be made on the limited facts she provided.
Furthermore, she acknowledges that some of Smith's problems have nothing to do with the workers-compensation system but with the insurance company handling his file.
As a case manager, I've worked with many injured workers in numerous workers-compensation systems. In most cases, these systems work well, though some are clearly better than others. In my 11 years of experience, I have found that most injured workers in the Virginia system receive their wage replacement without delay, and medical costs are reimbursed at 100 percent by the insurance company.
Most of my clients have comparable monthly incomes as wage reimbursement that is tax-free. When combined with disability policies that many have on mortgages, car loans and credit cards, the injured worker has more tangible income each month than he or she did when working. Should the system be changed to correct this ``problem'' of financial disincentives to return to work?
I recall a recent case where, due to a computer error, my client was paid twice what he was due under the workers-compensation system. He didn't bring this to anyone's attention, and deposited his extra checks for six months before anyone noticed. You might think he would be willing to acknowledge the error and reimburse the overpayments. Guess again.
Some insurance companies have tried to voluntarily provide wage reimbursement while investigating a claim in order to help the injured worker continue to meet financial commitments. You might think that when the investigation concludes and the ``injury'' isn't found to meet the definitions under workers' compensation law, the claim would close. Guess again.
Unsuccessful attempts were made by the business community during the recent General Assembly session to permit wage reimbursement for several months without prejudicing the right to contest the claim. The message I hear (and most insurance companies seem to hear) is ``do not make any payments until the investigation is complete.''
Yes, Lawrence, is right. The Virginia Workers' Compensation Act isn't perfect and could benefit from some improvements. Remember, though, that there are at least two sides in every case. One-sided stories of injustice serve only to flame the fires of ill will. The answers cannot, and should not, be legislated until all parties have been heard and find a common ground. Then, with a collective voice, we can tell our legislators what needs to be done.
Susan Wirt,who owns her own business, works as a case manager in the private sector with injured, disabled and seriously ill people.
LENGTH: Medium: 60 linesby CNB