The Division’s website has forms to enable attorneys to accomplish the actions listed below. In order to minimize errors and miscommunication, and to aid Division staff in quickly and accurately tracking case files, please follow these simple procedures.

1. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE. If you file a claim for compensation or an answer to a claim for compensation, the Division will automatically link you to that case and list you thereafter as the attorney of record.Please file an entry of appearance unless you filed a Claim for Compensation or an Answer to Claim for Compensation. This allows the Division to accurately add you to the list of persons to receive notice.We encourage you to use the Division’s Entry of Appearance form, http://www.dolir.mo.gov/wc/forms/wc-235-ai.pdf
2. CHANGE OF ADDRESS. Please notify the Division in writing if you change your address. You may submit the written request to the Division’s Jefferson City office or to any of the http://www.dolir.mo.gov/wc/local_office_directory.htm
3. WITHDRAWAL. Missouri Supreme Court Rule, Rule 4-1.16 governs attorney withdrawals. We encourage you to use the Division’s Motion to Withdraw form http://www.dolir.mo.gov/wc/forms/wc-236-ai.pdf, when submitting a request for leave to withdraw. If you prefer to send a written request to an ALJ in lieu of the Division-approved form, please include the following information in the written request:
   • whether a hearing is required on your request to withdraw;
   • whether the underlying case has been set on the docket and the date of the next docket setting;
   • copy of the request has been mailed to all parties of record;
   • client consents, or other reason given for the attorney’s withdrawal.
4. SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL. You may use the Division’s Substitution of Counsel form, if you are withdrawing and there is a substitution of a new attorney in the case. If you elect to use the substitution of counsel form, there is no need to submit a separate motion or request to withdraw. Please attach a list of all cases affected by the substitution of counsel if more than one case is involved.
5. CHANGE OF LAW FIRM. If you leave one firm to join another firm please notify the Division in writing of any cases you are taking to your new firm. If you are taking cases with you to the new firm, please file a Substitution of Counsel Form WC-237 at http://www.dolir.mo.gov/wc/forms/wc-237-ai.pdf to reflect the event. If you are not taking cases with you, but leaving the cases at your former firm, the new attorney and the former firm should file a Substitution of Counsel Form WC-237 to reflect the event. Press CTRL + LEFT CLICK to follow the links.

The Division of Workers’ Compensation is offering a new option for electronic docket notices. If you want to opt out of receiving the email stating “no notices were sent”, please email the address below stating such and the Division will discontinue these emails to you. This means you will only receive your docket notices. If you prefer to continue receiving these emails no action is needed.

Also, effective May 1, 2009, the Branson docket and the associated counties of Stone, Taney, Douglas and Ozark will officially transfer from the Joplin Office to the Springfield Office. The Rolla docket and the associated counties of Phelps, Dent and Crawford will transfer from the Springfield Office to the Jefferson City Office. The Union/Washington docket and the associated county of Franklin will transfer from the Jefferson City office to the St. Charles Office.
Starting in June the Division’s ALJ’s will begin traveling to our outlying dockets for all of our settings -including prehearings, conferences and mediations.

In addition, the Joplin office has recently added a new docket venue in Monett consisting of cases from Barry and Lawrence Counties. First dockets are set for June 2 & 3 with June 4^th held in reserve for additional mediations and will be held at the Justice Center, 1901 E. Cleveland Street, Monett Mo. Also, the Joplin docket will consist of JasperCounty but will include all Joplin zip codes, some of which include part of Newton County. Cases from Saginaw, in Newton County, will also be set in Joplin. The Nevada docket will now be held in Lamar at the Thiebaud Auditorium, 105 E. 11^th Street and will consist of cases from Barton, Cedar, Dade and Vernon Counties. The Neosho docket consists of McDonald County and Newton County cases, except for those areas in Newton County set out above and will be held at Crowder College, 601 Laclede Street, Neosho Mo. For a complete list of all statewide docket addresses see the list below.

Thank you for your attention to these matters and for your continued professionalism when working with the Division.

If you have any questions please call the Division’s toll-free number at 1- 800-775-2667

Jamie Hagler
Chief of Operations
Missouri Division of Workers’ Compensation

On Monday, June 8, the California Applicants Attorneys Association joined the California Labor Federation, the Consumer Federation of California, VotersInjuredatWork.org, the California Society for Industrial Medicine & Surgery, and Assemblymember Dave Jones in opposing the insurance industry’s proposed 23 percent increase for workers compensation insurance.

Such an increase is unwarranted.

Much of the industry’s proposed increase would pay for insurers’ expenses to review, and almost always reduce, delay or deny recommended medical care, not to pay for medical care injured workers need so they can return to work.

Medical care and permanent disability compensation for injured workers were drastically reduced by SB 899 and this administration’s implementing regulations. The system does not deliver the care and compensation injured workers need to survive, heal and return to work. Anyone who is aware of this, and can avoid the nightmare the workers compensation system has become, does so. Half of injured workers now avoid the workers compensation system. In calculating workers compensation case costs, the insurance industry ignored the fact that workers compensation claims have dropped by 50 percent, and that permanent disability compensation has been cut by 50 percent to 70 percent.

Because so many smaller claims are leaving the system, only the more serious claims are left. This increases average medical costs per claim, because now the average injury covered by workers’ compensation is more severe. But there are only half as many injuries to pay for, so that must be accounted for, which the insurance companies did not do.

The insurance industry is using an increase in medical costs per case to push for an unprecedented 23 percent rate hike. But the insurance industry’s own figures show that medical treatment has declined as a percentage of total workers compensation costs, while the costs of delaying and denying care have doubled. Insurers spend $550 million a year reviewing and overruling the care recommended by their own handpicked doctors.

Employers control medical treatment for nearly all inured workers. The overwhelming majority of medical treatment is provided through medical networks established by employers or insurers. Virtually all fees are subject to a fee schedule, so why is so much money going to cost control? Why is so much being spent to overrule medical care recommended by the insurers’ own handpicked doctors?

Injured workers are required to see doctors chosen by the company, so why are insurance carriers overruling these doctors?

The insurance companies have lumped these medical management expenses in with “medical costs,” but I assure you that utilization review and defense lawyers have never cured an injury.

It is folly to believe insurance industry claims that the reforms are no longer reducing costs. Statutory limits on physical therapy and chiropractic treatment are still in place, medical treatment authorization requests are still judged against nationally developed treatment guidelines and are subject to utilization review, outpatient facility fees are still subject to the Medicare fee schedule, injured workers can still receive a maximum of 104 weeks of temporary disability, penalties for unreasonable delay are still minuscule, and permanent disability awards are still subject to apportionment.

The insurance industry also grossly overstates the impact of recent court decisions that could increase costs, and failed to include those that will reduce costs.

There is considerable misunderstanding regarding the impact of two recent en banc decisions from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. The two decisions – Almaraz and Guzman – will have only a minor impact on permanent disability compensation. The estimated impact of these cases accounts for only 5.7 percent of the proposed 23 percent increase.

However, because the WCAB recently granted reconsideration on both cases, any attempt to quantify their eventual impact – if any – on claim costs is grossly premature. What is certain is that these cases will not and cannot reverse the unintended 50% reduction in permanent disability benefits caused by adoption of the 2005 PDRS.

Other recent court decisions will reduce both benefit and expense costs.

The insurance industry ignored these cases in its proposed rate hike.

The petition before the court includes workers’ compensation liabilities for active plants and operations, as well as incurred claims for ongoing workers’ compensation benefits in many jurisdictions where operations have ceased. According to the petition, the magnitude of past claims is enormous:

As of the Commencement Date approximately 12,500 workers’ compensation claims were pending against the Debtors. The Debtors estimate that the aggregate amount payable on account of incurred but not yet paid claims and IBNR claims arising prior to the Commencement Date is approximately $1.47 billion. Of course, not all of this amount is immediately due, but rather would be payable throughout the succeeding months and even years. The Debtors estimate that cash payments for the next 12 months related to prepetition workers’ compensation claims will be approximately $240 million.

The formal request to honor these past payments is stated as follows:

A GM official commented that Alabama, Georgia, New Jersey, and Oklahoma were omitted because they have no current GM operations. However, Greg Krohm, Executive Director of the IAIABC notes, “Even if collateral or surety coverage is sufficient to pay all future claims, there is likely going to be at least a few weeks delay in initiating payments in these four states. Moreover, the adequacy of security at ultimate payout is not guaranteed.”

How quickly the court will respond to the petition is unclear. If the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York rules that evidentiary filings and hearings are called for, turning claims over to sureties or third party administrators will inevitably result in some interruptions in benefit payments. The company rationale to the court for priority preference for these claims is:

“If unopposed, this first day petition is likely to be granted. However, if creditors object the matter may be reopened,” according to Robert Aurbach, Principle, Uncommon Approach.