IMR Unconstitutional?
Workers’ compensation law has never really made sense. Is it workers’ comp, or is it employers’ protection? Is workers’ comp law here for injured workers, to make sure injured workers get adequate medical treatment and fair compensation so they can recover, get back to work, and feed their families, or is it to guard the employers’ and insurance companies money and stockholder dividends? Independent medical review is the classic example in workers’ compensation that proves that the system is rigged against injured workers. At least for now.
The Court of Appeal in Stevens will hear oral argument in September 2015 that the IMR system is unconstitutional. IMR is the system where an anonymous, non-examining doctor decides what medical treatment is provided to injured workers in a workers’ comp injury and issues a binding, final, non-appealable decision. The injured worker has no right to talk to or be examined by the doctor. The injured worker has no right to take the deposition of the doctor. The injured worker has no right to a hearing on the need for the treatment, has no right to testify or talk to a judge, and has no right to have the doctor’s decision reversed by any court. The doctor’s decision becomes the decision of the State of California. Murderers, rapists and the Nazis at Nuremberg have more rights than injured workers.
The Court of Appeals is being asked to decide whether IMR is unconstitutional.
What do you think?
