pages: CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-10-05 | 8 | Councilmember Gilmore inquired when was the agreed medical examiner agreed upon, to which the City Attorney responded probably within a month of filing the claim. Councilmember Gilmore stated the agreed upon medical examiner was agreed upon before the case came to Council on September 21st Consent Calendar, to which the City Attorney concurred. Councilmember Gilmore inquired why the matter was scheduled for Council to determine settlement authority if Council had no discretion. The City Attorney responded that neither she nor the Risk Manager had been properly advised by the City's third party administrator that the injured worker had an attorney and that the matter had been scheduled for the judge's order on September 29th; the matter was placed before Council because of the third party administrator's recommendation to get Council's settlement authority; the matter is not before Council tonight because the matter has already been dispositively ordered by the workers compensation appeal judge; that she can provide Council and the community with an Off Agenda report explaining how the workers compensation process works and/or can request Mr. Epstein to make a presentation to Council, including what the process has been for at least twenty years. Councilmember Gilmore state mandatory settlement conferences are set weeks or months in advance in most trial situations; inquired whether the same is true for workers compensation. The City Attorney responded that she cannot advise when settlement occurred; stated information provided by the third party administrator was wrong; no one had the proper information and she did not discover that the matter was scheduled for the workers compensation appeals judge until last week. Councilmember Gilmore inquired why Outside Counsel informed the judge that he had no settlement authority if there was no discretion. The City Attorney responded the proceeding before the Workers Compensation Appeal Board is not like a civil trial in Superior Court; stated once parties have reached a disability rating either through an agreed upon medical examiner or dulling medical examiners, the case goes to the workers compensation appeals judge; at the mandatory settlement conference, the judge typically asks if there is any settlement authority; Mr. Epstein properly stated that he had no settlement authority; Mr. Epstein could have requested that the matter go to trial, in which case the judge would have set the trial, which is a one-day hearing before the same judge; the judge would have closed discovery at the mandatory settlement conference, which means that no new information could come in; the parties would be stuck with the agreed medical exam conclusion; the judge would simply reiterate his order because there is no defense; the injured employee would need to wait an extra ninety days to receive the statutory Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 October 5, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf |