Comments on: Exclusive – Sanford Settles With Workers’ Comp Commission

By: Silence Dogood

Silence Dogood — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:33:31 +0000

If Sanford would have studied basic civics he would have know that he is not allowed to “legislate” from the executive mansion and would have realized that he was trying to thwart the express actions of the legisature by executively passing what should be legislation, through an executive decree…However, he holds the title of governor, not king. Whether one agrees with S.C. determination of WCC impairment ratings or not, the real issue in this kerfuffle was Sandfords stupidity in trying to circumvent the legislative process.

By: Red Bank Bar

Red Bank Bar — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:13:27 +0000

Ok, Estelle, let’s reveal their attorneys fees and let us see for ourselves. Bottom line, this is all about making more money for insurance companies and paying injured workers less.

Mens Rea is 100 % correct. We have the most conservative group of commissioners in history and even they know Marshall’s power grab attempt was unlawful and wrong.

By: estelle getty lives in my pants

estelle getty lives in my pants — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:42:46 +0000

@ Red Bank Bar

The answer to your question is: not as much as you think. Insurance companies pay crap rates to their lawyers, and pay even crappier rates to WC defense lawyers. The only way to really make money is to do volume.

By: Red Bank Bar

Red Bank Bar — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:33:46 +0000

Mens, Mens, don’t confuse these plutocrats with facts, they can’t handle the truth.

I want to see how much Collins & Lacy, Nelson Motors, Sam Painter, McAngus, et al., make off the system. Let’s reveal insurance company defense lawyers fees.

We need some sunshine on insurance companies, Rep. Mick. I know, I know, you can’t support that since it makes so much sense and would actually lead to rate reductions. You’d rather mouth phony attacks on workers lawyers. Who, BTW, represent less than five percent of all workers compensated in the system.

By: Mens Rea

Mens Rea — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:44:24 +0000

It’s rated 7th-worst by a group that basically pulls numbers out of a hat.

Disability ratings are based on objective standards, i.e., the AMA Guidelines (which themselves require subjective assessment by doctors – there is not really any such thing as a purely objective physical injury), which give an impairment rating based on the percentage of loss of use of a given body part.

This is where the opponents of our system would have things stop. A person might get a 45% loss of use to the left hand under the AMA guidelines, and the Commission would then translate that into a monetary award. That sounds simple and fair, right?

Our system, however, makes the entirely logical distinction between actual physical, measurable impairment, and disability from earning a living. Consider the following: if a right-handed lawyer loses 45% of the use of her left hand, she will not be as disabled from earning a living as would a bricklayer or machinist with a similar injury. Therefore our system requires an impartial judicial officer to determine what degree of actual disability results to an individual, given that person’s age, occupation, and education level, and degree of physical impairment. Thus the lawyer might be awarded 50% to the hand, and the bricklayer 75%.

We have a fair system in South Carolina.

By: steen

steen — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:59:32 +0000

The proposed consent agreement was circulated widely last week; however, there is still a raging debate as to how so-called “scheduled awards” for permanent loss of use of listed body members are to be calculated. This is far from over!

By: SChotline

SChotline — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:32:32 +0000

Will, I think I might have seen this pic of our Gov, what is exclusive??