NEW JUDGE REBUFFS ATTEMPT TO DERAIL S.C. WORKERS’ COMP REFORM
FITSNews – March 11, 2008 – It turns out Upstate workers’ comp attorney Kathryn Williams isn’t quite the smooth operator she thought she was. After using her cozy relationship with a friendly judge to temporarily put the kibosh on long-overdue workers’ comp reforms a few months ago, a not-so-funny thing occurred that caused her otherwise foolproof plan to unravel. Specifically, Williams’ friendly judge suffered a stroke, which meant that a different federal judge was given the task of ruling on the merits of the case.
Yesterday, Federal District Court Judge Henry F. Floyd, the new presiding judge in the workers compensation action filed last December by Williams against the S.C. Workers Compensation Commission and Gov. Mark Sanford, ruled that he would abstain from taking any further action in reference to her complaint and instead allow our state court system to handle the matter.
Since state law is generally handled by state courts, this ruling shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to anybody. In fact, every workers’ comp lawyer we spoke with about this issue said the federal bench had no business butting its head into a debate over state law.
For those of you keeping score at home, here’s how we got to yesterday’s ruling …
A few months ago, Sanford managed to locate his testicles long enough to issue executive orders directing workers’ compensation commissioners to follow the law as passed by our legislature and interpreted by our courts when making injury awards (instead of using the helpful “new lawsâ€Â conjured up by creative personal injury lawyers).
Additionally, Sanford required his commissioners to submit quarterly reports to his office outlining the amount of their awards.
Even though the law clearly gives Sanford the authority to do what he did, few expected he would have the stones to actually do it when we published our original story on his intentions last August.
Of course, the ambulance chasers went absolutely nuts at the notion of workers’ comp commissioners actually following the law, with one even threatening to have the governor arrested for his rare show of testicular fortitude.
When that approach didn’t work, Williams and her ambulance-chasing buddies engineered sixteen federal claims against Sanford and his commissioners, bizarrely alleging conspiracies, breaches of civil rights, violations of medical privacy and numerous other grassy knoll theories.
Of course, none of those sixteen claims referenced how South Carolina commissioners have typically increased the medical doctor’s impairment rating of an injured worker by an average of 80 percent in making their awards, whereas in other Southeastern states the commissioners’ average ratings are only 17 percent above the medical doctors’ ratings.
Nor was there any mention in those claims of the skyrocketing workers’ compensation insurance premiums that our state’s businesses have been forced to pay out in recent years, or how lawyer-legislators in the South Carolina General Assembly received nearly $6 million in workers’ comp attorney fees over the past three years – from same commissioners they elect, no less.
Fortunately, Judge Floyd brought some much-needed sanity back to the process yesterday afternoon. He sent the ambulance chasers home and advised Williams and her cronies that South Carolina courts are perfectly capable of interpreting South Carolina laws.
By Fed up business owner March 11, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Attention Luke Rankin. You will have opposition this next election cycle. I will personally pay for a direct mail piece to let everyone know you used your position to benefit you law practice with workers comp crap. See you soon Luke.
By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' ... March 11, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Kathryn Williams epitomizes all that is wrong with out legal system: she is singly motivated by greed and will stoop to any level to increase her personal fortunes. It is just that fate stepped in and prevented Williams and our state’s worst federal judge from undermining our system of justice and state government to preserve a system that enriches Williams and her ilk through outrageous awards made by wreckless workers compensation commissioners. Get well soon, Judge Anderson, but please don’t aid this sleazy lawyer in her disgusting endeavor.
By anonymous March 12, 2008 at 1:28 am
Bodies of John and Liz Calvert Located
Author: Chris McIntire
Sources in Hilton Head are reporting that the bodies of John and Liz Calvert have been located behind “Truffles Cafe†a local restaurant located on Lighthouse Road less than a mile from the Harbour Town Yacht Basin.
Police are still on the scene but the bodies have been removed.
Truffles is a popular dining establishment away from the tourist haunts of Harbor Town.
Note this is a breaking story and subject to correction as more facts become known.
http://postandcourierblogs.com/life_floating_by/?p=58
By More Questions Than Answers March 12, 2008 at 8:23 am
Is Anderson stepping down? What are the chances that Bush could appoint another judge?
By to be accurate . . . March 12, 2008 at 8:55 am
In fact, the legislature debated this as part of workers’ compensation reform, and rejected adherence to the AMA Guides in assigning disability awards. The primary reason for this is that the AMA Guides state that its ratings are iimpairment ratings, not disability ratings (disability takes into account not just impairment, but also how impairment impacts one’s ability to work, etc.).
The problem with the Executive Order is that it seems to contradict itself: How can the Commission adhere to the AMA Guides, which is not the law, but “follow the law” as instructed in the Order?
This is the primary question being brought to the courts.
PS – Commissioners are not elected by the legislature. They are appointed by the governor. Sanford appointed 4 of the 7 current Commissioners.
By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' March 12, 2008 at 9:55 am
They have to be confirmed by the Senate.
By to be accurate . . . March 12, 2008 at 10:52 am
“They have to be confirmed by the Senate” – what is your point? Do you think the Senate should have been rejecting Sanford’s nominees?
The fact is the Commissioners are not a pile of liberal, wreckless people throwing money off of a wagon at claimants. For the most part, they are conservative appointees of your governor.
It amazes me that people so readily ascribe “greed” to attorneys that represent plaintiffs and claimants, while most of these same people are motivated by the fact that they think they could make more money if the law was different. I guess that’s not greed – its just business.
Attacking a position or an issue is one thing, but pretending money may motivate one side but not the other is just transparently disingenuous and absurd.
By Eye on the Prize March 12, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Those who think the Senate doesn’t completely control who sits as a WC commissioner is, to borrow a phrase, “transparently disingenuous and absurd.” The Senate will reject anyone appointed by the governor who doesn’t pass muster with the lawyer-legislators. And yes, the Senate has rejected Sanford nominees (example: Harry Gregory three years ago).
The bottom line is that personal injury lawyers have hijacked the system. Our state’s workers’ compensation plan was designed to minimize the need for lawyers. A worker injured on the job did not have to prove fault by the employer to recover compensation and the amount of compensation for the worker’s injury was specified by statute. The process was simple and clean and did not require lawyers.
But as is the case in every other area of American life, lawyers got their nose in the tent. (A couple of interesting facts: the U.S. has seventy percent of the world’s lawyers but only five percent of the world’s population and it has thirty times more lawsuits annually than Japan.) Personal injury lawyers using sophisticated marketing techniques – you know, those hucksters on television with numbers like 1-800-SUE-THEM – convinced injured workers that they could help them recover higher compensation awards.
And it worked. Personal injury lawyers in South Carolina have hooked clients and then persuaded workers compensation commissioners to make awards above and beyond those specified by the law – to the point where the average award in South Carolina is 181% of the average awards made in states like North Carolina.
Trouble is, however, the injured worker is no better off. Yes, the personal injury lawyers have persuaded commissioners to increase compensation awards to amounts beyond those set by law, but in most cases those increases are sopped up by the personal injury lawyers’ outrageous attorney fees. (The “33% percent of award†attorney fee cap in South Carolina is the second highest in the nation.)
By The Truth March 12, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Harry Gregory had some personal issues that kept him out…check the Richland Co court records to see…
By Truth?Really? March 12, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Hey, Truth — check the Senate Journals–Levintis filibustered on the last day of the session to keep Gregory’s nomination from going to a vote at the behest of David Thomas and fellow trial lawyer buddy Andy Saffran because Saffran lost a comp case in front of Gregory while Gregory was while filling an interim position. Oh — at the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings on Gregory, no “personal issues” were raised, only Saffran’s displeasure at not winning a case.
By lawyers also bombed pearl harbor March 12, 2008 at 4:29 pm
How many lawyers are in the legislature now? Even among the few lawyers who are there, they aren’t all plaintiff’s/claimant’s attorneys. That is non-sense.
Do you realize that claimants are represented by attorneys in only about 20% of the total claims filed in South Carolina? If lawyers highjacked the system, they did a damn poor job of it.
And no, the primary intent of the workers’ compensation system was not to minimize the need for lawyers – it was to cap damages in exchange for not having to prove fault. The alternative is to leave companies open to a civil suit in cases where an injury resulted from a company’s wrong-doing, which could ultimately prove fatal to that business in many instances. We are talking about a legal system – obviously, this necessitates some level of lawyer involvement.
It is profoundly ignorant to claim that lawyer’s fees leave clients in the same position they would have been without representation. For example, in a great number of cases where a lawyer is involved, there would be NO RECOVERY without the attorney. Its called a denied case, and the lawyer must step in to prove that the insurance company improperly denied benefits to a deserving claimant under the law. Do you think someone wholly unfamiliar with the intricacies of the law should do that for themselves? Should they have to do that when the insurance company hires a defense attorney to argue no benefits should be paid?
I suppose if one believes that insurance companies are great big ole benevolent teddy bears that only have claimants’ best interests at heart, then some of what you say makes since. However, because insurance companies endeavor to make money, not lose money, they frequently act first in their own interests, and certainly shade to the minimum when they do agree that there is an actionable claim. Lawyers are necessary because things fequently fail to work perfectly and because people/entities often do not behave the way they should.
Ultimately, this is a tired attack that tries to scapegoat lawyers for a problem they did not cause: higher insurance rates. The number of claims filed in South Carolina and the one’s with attorney involvement has largely been static over the last several years, and there have been no real changes in the total for awards that have been paid. In fact, a court in this state previously struck down suggested increases by the insurance industry because they were baseless. Further, the lost cost multiplier (which insurance companies have cryptically used to justify their suggested increases) was addressed by the legislature as a part of workers’ compensation reform, so that this multiplier must be now be explained. Therefore, why not go to the source and give the insurance industry hell about all of this?
Of course, they will tell you it’s all because of the lawyers.
By Loss Cost Multiplier March 12, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I really like your website FitsNews, but you guys got a lot wrong here. First of all, “to be accurate” is correct. The attorneys are not trying to apply conjured-up “new laws” for their benefit. The use of a disability rating was the law prior to the reform, continues to be the law, and was explicitly rejected as part of the reform by the legislature. The governor has not miraculously developed some testicular fortitude, but rather has broken the law by improperly influencing a judicial commissioner of the state of South Carolina. See South Carolina Code Annotated Section 16-9-340, which makes it unlawful by threat to impede or intimidate a commissioner of this state. By threatening to fire any commissioner that didnt abide by his policies, Sanford violated this provision. Thus, despite your intimation to the contrary, its not all that implausible to suggest that Sanford be arrested. I know if I violated this statute I’d be arrested. It shouldnt be any different just because he’s the governor.
Second of all, this business about increasing the ratings by 80% over what the drs suggest is flat baloney. Insurance companies systematically send claimants to drs who will give low ratings. Claimants attorneys then have to get a legitimate rating from an independent doctor. Commissioners almost always award something in between and certainly not 80% more. Thats just plain wrong.
Who is really to blame for the skyrocketing premiums? Ask your insurance buddies about the phrase “loss cost multiplier”. Its insurance code speak for profit and accounts for 45% of every premium paid, right off the top! You want to talk about outrageous profits at 33% for attorneys? What about 45% for insurance companies who do nothing but deny claims! Attorneys put time and effort into cases, and argue on behalf of legitimate workers comp claimaints who are turned down for benefits every day by insurance carriers who care only about profit (which by the way is in addtion to the 45%). In 2006, profits from this 45% alone exceeded $407 million, even after deducting out special injury fund assessments.
What accounts for that? Increases in number of work injuries? Nope, the number of injuries at least stayed the same if not reduced. Increased medical costs? Sure, I can buy this one, but to the tune of $400 million? Come on. You guys like snooping around at political backwoods stuff. How about taking a look at who has lined Sanford’s campaign pockets? You can bet there are some big contributions from insurance folks.
If it wasnt for workers comp attorneys, legitimately injured folks would go totally without relief. Take a look at what Florida has done in totally abandoning their workers comp system and watch to see how that affects the businesses that decide not to locate plants there because they cant find workers.
If it was really so bad, why would BMW, who has the resources to put a plant anywhere in the country, triple its original investment in South Carolina and inject $750M more dollars into manufacturing based jobs?
By Truth?Really? March 12, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Ok, so it sbundantly clear that # 11 & #12 are trial lawyers/lobbyists or both (really, who can really tell?) — but Sic, pull the carpet out from under them because they still ignore the fact that the majority of SC employers are self-insured. This Loss-Cost business is a red herring for those who are making millions off the back of the disabled.
As for #12′s suggestion that “If it wasnt for workers com attorneys, legitimately injured flolks would go totally without relief…” Let me introduce you to Commmissioners Huffstetler, Bass, Funderburke, Roache, Williams, Barden, & Lyndon — they may have an issue with your gross and wholly inaccurate assertion.
By lawyers also bombed pearl harbor March 13, 2008 at 8:18 am
#13, facts are facts. If the loss-cost multiplier is such a red herring, why did the legislature specifically address it last year? Commissioner Huffstetler, a Sanford appointee and Chairman of the Commission, has been giving a presentation on the overwhelming impact of the loss cost multiplier to groups for the last 2 or 3 years. In fact, he gave this presentation to the legistlature. That’s a lot of time and effort to spend on a red herring from someone who does not stand to profit either way.
I am a lawyer that represents claimants and plaintiffs. Prior to that, I worked for a large firm representing insurance companies against claimants and plaintiffs. So what does that mean? If I was a golf pro or managed a shift at a mill, would it change the weight of the assertions and facts presented? It is telling that you’ve punted on the issues and tried to dive down to tap into the “lawyer-hater” vein.
I understand both this system and these issues. I am not a lobbyist – I am a realist.
By the way, thanks for standing up for the Commissioners after the entire point of your prior posts is that they can’t be trusted to give fair awards. You have got to be kidding me with that. Given your mastery of mixed messages, you should go work on the Clinton campaign.