 |
 |
 |
|
PENNSYLVANIA FEDERATION OF INJURED WORKERS Call us toll free 1-888-376-7942
|
||
| ||||||
|
|
September 24, 2002
Are IME's (Independent Medical Examination) Good Policy? Expressed opinion by Michael A. Kerstetter, PFIW Dauphin County The Pennsylvania Legislature passed legislation so the Worker's Compensation Bureau can allow IME's (Independent Medical Examination). Independent Medical Examinations are used by an employer/worker's compensation insurance company to confirm that a worker is really injured. This practice is redundant since an injured worker must treat with a doctor chosen by the employer for the first 90 days of an injury. This time period should be enough time for an employer/worker's compensation insurance company to have a doctor of their choice confirm the fact that the worker is actually injured. How many times do employers need to confirm an injury? The IME allows the employer/worker's compensation insurance company to dispute the medical findings of the treating doctor the injured worker chooses. Everyone associated with workers compensation including all of the state legislators, in Harrisburg, know that there is nothing independent about the examinations, but yet the practice is allowed to continue. The employer/worker's compensation insurance company shop around to find a doctor who will do the medical exam and then testify that there is nothing wrong with the injured worker. The average cost of the exam and the testimony of the IME doctor is about $4,000.00 to as high as $9,000.00. For an injured worker to come up with that amount of money for medical testimony is a real set back. Without the testimony the employer/worker's compensation insurance company can submit the IME testimony and persuade the workers compensation referee to issue a decision based on the IME. This makes it almost impossible for an injured worker to get a fair worker's compensation hearing without medical testimony supporting his/her claim. There is no cap on the amount of money charged for an IME. This practice drives up the cost of worker's compensation because the employer/worker's compensation insurance company can force an injured worker to submit to an IME twice a year at a cost of $8,000.00 to $18,000.00. This money could have been better used to find better medical treatment or to rehabilitate the injured worker. After the initial cost for treatment of a work related injury the majority of money spent on the claim to try and discredit the injury claim. Doctors are not held accountable if they lie under oath for an IME. The Pennsylvania Medical Board will not discipline a doctor for participating in this practice of putting a spin on the medical evidence that would help the employer/worker's compensation insurance company and discredit the medical record of an injured workers treating physician. The testimony is called subjective and that is how they get away with participating in this unethical practice. The issue about IME's has been brought up several times at the Pennsylvania Worker's Compensation Advisory Council by the Pennsylvania Federation of Injured Workers but so far the council says they will take it under advisement but no action has been taken to send a recommendation to the Legislature about this issue. I think the Pennsylvania WCAC (Worker's Compensation Advisory Council) will take this issue under advisement until it is dead. Everyone on the Pennsylvania WCAC agrees that the use of IME's has gotten out of hand and has ended up becoming a money maker for the doctors who do IME's. In all fairness to the Pennsylvania WCAC this issue has also been brought to the attention of all legislators by the Pennsylvania Federation of Injured Workers and nothing was done. An easy solution to this problem is to get rid of depositions of doctors and only allow medical records to entered into evidence. The medical record would contain tests and evaluations that can be considered by a workers Compensation Referee when deciding whether or not an injured workers claim is justified. Most of the time the doctor doing the IME will ignore these medical records, tests and evaluations when writing up an IME report to submit and evidence. Most of the tests and evaluations are done by doctors who are not involved in the litigation and are much more of an accurate opinion of the medical condition of the injured worker. No doctor needed to testify therefore reducing the cost of worker's compensation litigation. What injured workers in Pennsylvania are lacking is a legislator with character enough to step up to the plate and start the ball rolling to straighten out this nightmare. "Since injured workers are not a corporate interest the Pennsylvania legislators will not act to help them." MAK |
|
Send mail to
pfiw@comcast.net with questions or comments about this web site.
| ||||||
