pages: CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-10-05 | 7 | (10-480) The City Attorney gave a brief presentation on the workers compensation case, which was settled. Councilmember Matarrese stated normally, workers compensation issues happen in Closed Session; usually, an agreement is made by the policy board; proposed agreements are brought to Council for a vote; inquired how the case in question is different. The City Attorney responded the case is very unusual; stated the injured employee filed a claim; both sides agreed upon a medical examiner; the medical examiner submitted a disability rating; the employee did not ask for anything else; the disability rating was not disputed; Council has no discretion to refuse to grant the statutory compensation based upon the agreed upon medical examiner's decision; the outcome would not have been any different if the matter did not come to Council. Mayor Johnson stated the 31% [disability rating] is a discretionary number that either side could dispute. The City Attorney stated that she discussed the matter with Outside Counsel, Keith Epstein; Mr. Epstein has been the City's workers compensation attorney for almost twenty years; there is case law that if parties use an agreed upon medical examiner, then parties have agreed to accept whatever the agreed upon medical examiner's rating; it is not Mr. Epstein's practice to check the disability rating of the agreed upon medical examiner with Council; that she would discuss changing the process if Council wishes. Mayor Johnson stated that she is sensitive to the statement that there is no discretionary act. The City Attorney stated dulling medical opinions might occur if both sides have their own qualified medical examiner; discussions might take place regarding settlement and an appropriate disability rating. Mayor Johnson stated each side could put in a provision not to agree to accept the recommended disability rating. Councilmember Matarrese stated Council should have a say if financial discretion is being turned over to an agreed upon medical examiner; Council should have agreed to the process of accepting whatever the outcome would be before marching down said road. The City Attorney stated that she understands the confusion; suggested Mr. Epstein be brought to the next Council meeting, or as soon as is practicable, if Council wants to consider changing the process; Mr. Epstein could outline how the statutory workers compensation system works. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 October 5, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf |