I'm new to this Board so hopefully I've understood your questions and comments. I'll try to address them as best I can.
Quote:
Quoting BvIA
Would periodic payments and open medical not be the ''default'' settlement. A lump sum/C&R, granted, may be the norm in DC... I would have to imagine that is only due to the IW's wishing the cash payment vs continuing bi weekly payments on the indemnity due. Naturally, a lump sum would be in the best interests of the ER/IC.
|
In DC, if there is a true "settlement," then the indemnity portion of that will be paid usually in a lump sum. In the rare case where a lump sum is not used, a structured settlement may be used instead, but except for claimant's who would have obvious difficulty in managing their finances, in my opinion this introduces additional risk to him in the form of whether the annuity issuer is financially sound. You can imagine that in this economic environment this is a real concern. In the case of the OP, which if I understand correctly involves a leg injury, this is considered a scheduled member. In these cases, a claimant who reaches MMI is not entitled to ongoing wage loss benefits. Under this scenario in DC, the parties often enter into a "stipulation" regarding the nature and extent of the claimant's permanent disability (on a percentage basis). The stipulation once approved by the agency will be paid by the employer and carrier in a lump sum even though in theory it could be paid out over time. But the lump sum payment is NOT reduced to present value, meaning the advantage in the lump sum is actually to the claimant and not to the employer and carrier. A stipulation regarding PPD is always with open medicals. For additional compensation above and beyond the value of the stipulation, the parties may agree to a lump sum settlement, which often (but not always) closes the medicals, thus requiring the Set Aside.
Quote:
Quoting BvIA
Hopefully the AA' in DC are adequately informing their IW's of the shift in liability for their medical treatment from the ER/IC to themselves, and the potential out of pocket costs for treatment after a lump sum settlement.
|
If I understand the abbreviations you're using here, I think you're asking if the lawyers in DC are informing their clients about the risks of settling out medicals. I can only speak for myself, and of of course I am advising my clients of all of the risks involved here. By the way, all other things being equal, I would always rather settle claims with full open medical coverage, but in DC at least there are many carriers who will not do this any more. The flip side of this is that we can often get some fairly significant additional compensation for closing out future medical care even where there is no contemplation whatsoever of future medical treatment being required. Insurance carriers often place a significant value on a "closed file."
Quote:
Quoting BvIA
As well as the AA fees based on the full amount of the "todays dollar'' settlement, including indemnity and the MSA allocation. All of that money is included in a C&R.... unless the DC AA's are not charging fees on the future medical allocations...
|
Again, I hope I understand all of abbreviations here. In DC, the attorney's fee may or may not be based on a percentage of the total benefits secured, including any additional compensation secured for closing out the medicals. But in any event, DC comp (claimant's) attorney's are required to itemize their time, with the fee request subject to approval by the agency and capped at a maximum of 20% of the total benefits secured.
Similar Threads
Re: Compensation Amounts After Falling at Work
Linear Mode
