John Abraham, Author at The Law Firm of Brown Gren Abraham & McCracken

October 23, 2019August 1, 2022 by John Abraham

Where’s my DIME?

One of the main strategies in workers’ compensation claims involves the selection of a particular venue for the DIME process. For numerous years, Rule 11 was silent on the selection of a location for the Division IME. The party requesting the DIME had the option of selecting any venue in Colorado for the appointment to take place. From there, the DIME unit would select 3 physicians in the geographic location that the selecting party indicated on its Application and the DIME process would move forward. Essentially, any part of Colorado was “fair game” as the location in which to have a DIME. From a strategy perspective, selecting a specific geographical location for the DIME to take place could prove advantageous for the requesting party depending on the pool of physicians within that location. For example, it was not uncommon for residents from Fort Collins to request a DIME in Colorado Springs. One of the most common requests involved residents of Grand Junction traveling to Denver for their DIME appointment.

Respondents in certain geographical regions also had the strategy of requesting a pre-emptive DIME on a claim in which the treating physician placed the claimant at MMI with no impairment. For example, if a claimant in Colorado Springs was placed at MMI without impairment and was almost certain to request a DIME in Colorado Springs, Respondents would have the option of going for the DIME themselves as a pre-emptive measure and to take away claimant’s right to select a particular, more liberal venue to have the DIME.

Rule 11 is still silent on the venue for a DIME to take place. However, the recent changes to the Application for a DIME have added a specific portion to the Application form regarding venue selection. On the Application for a DIME, it states as follows, “preferred geographical location of examination. (The location in which the claimant resides may take precedence over the preferred location).” Of note is the use of the word “preferred” and specifically noting that claimant’s residence may take precedence instead of the preferred location selected. This is a new change that the DIME unit is focusing on and it appears in the past several months that the DIME unit is using a reasonableness standard when selecting physicians in a particular geographic location. For example, Respondents may want to challenge a treating physicians’ rating from the western slope and request a DIME in Denver. Gone are the days in which a three-doctor Denver panel was guaranteed. Instead, the DIME unit may put a combination of Denver and western slope physicians on the panel for selection. The process involves many variables as to which physicians are on the panel, including but not limited to, available physicians, specialties, current physicians performing DIMEs, timing, etc.

This new approach by the DIME unit is a topic of discussion and poses many issues. One issue is whether the venue preference will be applied equally to both parties and if bias is removed from the panel selection process. If Respondents are getting physicians from a select geographical location but claimants are not, (and vice-versa), it doesn’t present fairness to the DIME process for both parties. Another issue is the amount of physicians present in one geographic location and whether the pool of DIME physicians throughout the state are performing examinations routinely. For example, if Colorado Springs is frequently selected as a venue, and physicians within that pool are performing DIMEs more frequently than other physicians, does it eliminate the concerns that the new changes to the Rule hoped to address in having a wider variety of physicians participate in the process? Yet another issue is either party wanting a specific venue due to a fact specific reason in the claim, and not particularly receiving it despite the request of one or both parties. The new Rule allows the parties to agree to a number of issues, including the physician to perform the DIME and the cost. However, can the parties agree to a venue when there is a disagreement to the physician and cost?

Major changes to any Rule are usually met with many questions about its implementation. Venue selection for the DIME process has always been a strategic focus for both parties and now poses even more questions based on the changes to the Application for DIME. Now that the DIME unit is exercising some control over the venue selection, it may change the focus of the strategy for the DIME in a different direction. Respondents may want to rely upon the fact that a DIME panel may not entirely be composed of physicians within one region, but instead, focus on the potential for obtaining a panel with more variety that could ultimately impact the case in different ways. Employers and carriers may want to focus the fight on a different aspect of the DIME such as cost. In light of the changes to Rule 11, it is important to discuss the DIME strategy with counsel and the client to ensure that all of the facts and potential options are being discussed to best forward the claim to resolution. Always remember that the Prehearing Unit retains jurisdiction to resolves issues pertaining to the DIME. Once a Motion is filed, the DIME is held in abeyance pursuant to Rule 11. If the parties are able to agree on the venue, it may be worthwhile to reduce the agreement to a stipulated Order and provide a copy of it to the DIME unit so that there is no question as to which physicians can be selected from a certain geographical region.

If you have any questions regarding the changes to the Rules or the updated statutes, feel free to contact us.

March 19, 2019September 15, 2021 by John Abraham

New Rule 11 – How’s It Going?

We’re now going on almost three months since the new Rule 11 took effect with the updated DIME fees and procedures. Time flies, doesn’t it? There has been some litigation that has ensued as a result of the recent changes, but overall the changes have been well received. This is likely because most people prepared adequately for the changes that were taking effect well before the start of the New Year.

The litigation that has ensued has been primarily regarding the “regions” listed in the checklist contained on the Application for DIME and the body parts involved in the claim. Since the “regions” have caused some confusion, the fees have also needed clarification. Some of the litigation revolved around the specific body parts to a claim and Rule 11’s breakdown of cost. The checklist looks as follows:

Above each set of body parts, the boxes are listed as regions. Pursuant to Rule 11, “less than three regions” is a fee of $1,000. “Three or more regions” is a fee of $1,400. It is recommended to double-check the Applications for DIME that are received to see if compliance with the Rule is met. Any discrepancies and/or arguments concerning interpretation of the Rule can be handled by the Prehearing Administrative Law Judges. The Judges have done an outstanding job of interpreting the Rule and correcting many issues for the DIME unit. Also note, that some of the disputes have resulted in body parts that either were or were not related to the claim. Such disputes have involved related body parts that should be part of the DIME, however claimants have tried to keep them out to lower the overall costs of the DIME. Other disputes have arisen between the terms “and/or” as used in the Rule. The arguments pertaining to the semantics have been resolved mostly using the word “or” to imply that either one or the other conditions must be met to trigger a particular fee.

In general, the DIME process seems to be running smoothly and interpretation of the new Rules seems to be pretty straightforward. Like any Rule change, it will take some time to get used to and iron out the wrinkles. It is important to double-check the new Rule and make sure compliance is met to avoid missing any particular arguments that will pose any sort of leverage in a claim. Recall, that the new Rule only applies to Notices and Proposals filed on or after January 1, 2019. Any Notice and Proposal filed before that date adheres to the old Rule 11.

If you have any questions regarding the changes to the Rules or the updated statutes, feel free to contact us.

October 24, 2018September 15, 2021 by John Abraham

Recovery of Overpayments in Workers’ Compensation Claims

The issue of overpayments has drawn much attention in recent years. Several claims have gone up to the appellate courts regarding the jurisdiction and ability of the Division and an ALJ to order repayment of workers’ compensation benefits that were previously paid. As you may imagine, repayment of several thousand dollars by a claimant is usually very difficult, if not impossible. Employers and carriers usually protect themselves and recoup overpayment from future benefits owed. Several cases have emerged, (as well as arguments from claimants), that recovery of over-payments is impermissible, unconstitutional, and burdensome.

The parties must always take into consideration that the workers’ compensation system is a gamble at every stage. The parties often encounter substantial risk throughout the claim that could tip the scales in favor of one party or the other. The Division IME is one such process. Another example is a merits hearing and the ultimate determination of the ALJ. Claimants risk that benefits paid earlier in the claim will suddenly become an overpayment based on the opinions of either a physician or a Judge, or both.

Pursuant to section 8-40-201(15.5), C.R.S., an overpayment is defined as: “money received by a claimant that exceeds the amount that should have been paid, or which the claimant was not entitled to receive, or which results in duplicate benefits because of offsets that reduce disability or death benefits payable under said articles. For an overpayment to result, it is not necessary that the overpayment exist at the time the claimant received disability or death benefits under said articles.”

Recovery of overpayments is permitted within the Act. Many examples exist in which a claimant may have been paid money that they were not owed. Most of the time, Respondents recoup an overpayment from PPD or future indemnity. However, in a situation in which there are no future benefits owed, the Act allows for garnishment of the claimant’s assets upon filing of a final order with the district court. Section 8-43-306(1), C.R.S. states, “A certified copy of any final order of the director or an administrative law judge ordering the payment of any penalty or repayment of overpayments pursuant to articles 40 to 47 of this title may be filed with the clerk of the district court of any county in this state at any time after the period of time provided by articles 40 to 47 of this title for appeal or seeking review of the order has passed without appeal or review being sought or, if appeal or review is sought, after the order has been finally affirmed and all appellate remedies and all opportunities for review have been exhausted. The party filing the order shall at the same time file a certificate to the effect that the time for appeal or review has passed without appeal or review being undertaken or that the order has been finally affirmed with all appellate remedies and all opportunities for review having been exhausted. The clerk of the district court shall record the order and the filing party’s certificate in the judgment book of said court and entry thereof made in the judgment docket, and it shall thenceforth have all the effect of a judgment of the district court, and execution may issue thereon out of said court as in other cases. Any such order may be filed by and in the name of the director or by and in the name of the party in the worker’s compensation action who was injured by the violation of any provision of articles 40 to 47 of this title or who was found to be entitled to repayment of overpayments under said articles.”

It is quite difficult for a claimant attorney to explain to their client that money that was previously received by a claimant, now had to be paid back to the carrier. For example, when a Division IME physician backdates the date of MMI, and TTD that was paid during the prior MMI period, now becomes an overpayment; a claimant is often left with the burden of understanding how a physician can retroactively find that MMI happened earlier in time. Another example is recovery of benefits against SSDI that is being collected. Claimant sometimes believe that they are entitled to SSDI and TTD/TPD concurrently without an offset.

Many arguments have been made to the appellate courts unsuccessfully regarding collection of an overpayment. One such argument involves “monies due and owed at the time of payment.” Any money paid to the claimant at the time it was owed should not be an “overpayment” pursuant to the Act. This argument was addressed by the Court of Appeals and they declined to follow it indicating that the Act allows for repayment of monies in situations in which the money was never due in the first place. It wouldn’t be surprising for this line of thinking to be quickly eroded by a legislative change in which an overpayment is defied expressly in the statute by other means in which the facts of a case would not change the overall intentions of the way it was written.

For now, Respondents have one-year from the date the overpayment exists or accrued to claim it. If it is not claimed, it is considered waived. If an overpayment of indemnity exists on a file, it is best to claim it right away and strategize with counsel how best to recoup the overpayment. Sometimes, remedies can be worked out with the claimant to make both parties happy and ensure that there is not prejudice to either side. It can certainly prevent an Order being granted which puts the claimant is a difficult position of having to make a repayment of monies, when in all likelihood the money is either gone and/or has a very little chance of being seen again.

If you have any questions regarding an overpayment, recoupment, or strategy regarding benefits on a claim; please contact us.

in Articles / Blog / Firm Newsletters 0 comments

June 4, 2018September 15, 2021 by John Abraham

Acts of Employees that Reduce Compensation

There are a few defenses often overlooked when investigating a workers’ compensation claim and deciding whether to admit liability. Some of those defenses include safety rule violations, willful misleading of the Employer regarding the claimant’s physical abilities, and intoxication defenses. These defenses should always be considered as part of a checklist when determining compensability and benefits owed to the claimant. Each defense can reduce compensation to the claimant by up to 50% and can be taken immediately upon the filing of the initial filing the admission with the Division. It is important to note the distinctions with each defense as they must be noted in the remarks section of the admission when filing with the Division.

Safety Rule Violations

Section 8-42-112(1), C.R.S. provides as follows; “The compensation provided for in articles 40 to 47 of this title shall be reduced fifty percent:

(a) Where injury is caused by the willful failure of the employee to use safety devices provided by the employer;

(b) Where injury results from the employee’s willful failure to obey any reasonable rule adopted by the employer for the safety of the employee”

The key phrase to keep in mind with regard to safety rule violations and/or safety devices is the use of the word “willful.” The word has been defined by the Supreme Court as “deliberate intent.” The claimant must have known the rule communicated by the Employer and deliberately chose not to follow the Rule or use the safety device. Negligence on the part of the claimant is not enough to allow safety rule violation. However, intent can be inferred by the ALJ where the facts lead the trier of fact to consider that the claimant knew of the Rule and specifically chose not to follow it. The burden of proof regarding safety rule violations is always on the Respondents to prove in court. If successful, the safety rule violation is a 50% reduction that applies to all indemnity throughout the life of the claim.

Misleading the Employer regarding the claimant’s physical abilities

Section 8-42-112(1)(d), C.R.S. provides as follows; “Where the employee willfully misleads an employer concerning the employee’s physical ability to perform the job, and the employee is subsequently injured on the job as a result of the physical ability about which the employee willfully misled the employer. Notwithstanding any other provisions of articles 40 to 47 of this title, the provisions of this paragraph (d) shall apply in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed under section 8-43-402.”

Again, in order for the Employer to take a 50% reduction in benefits pursuant to this statute, the Employer must prove that the claimant willfully mislead the Employer regarding the claimant’s physical abilities to perform the job. Should proof and documentation exist regarding the claimant’s intent to deceive the Employer, the ALJ can make the inference that the claimant’s actions were deliberate in order to obtain employment with the Employer or seek a position in which the claimant could not perform the job functions.

Intoxication defense

Given the current state of the law and the legalization of marijuana within Colorado, Respondents must always consider the intoxication defense when analyzing defenses in a claim. Although marijuana is legal, the Employer still retains the right to prohibit the employee from using marijuana or other controlled substances in the workplace. Section 8-42-112.5, C.R.S, indicates as follows,

(1) “Non-medical benefits otherwise payable to an injured worker are reduced fifty percent where the injury results from the presence in the worker’s system, during working hours, of controlled substances, as defined in section 18-18-102 (5), C.R.S., that are not medically prescribed or of a blood alcohol level at or above 0.10 percent, or at or above an applicable lower level as set forth by federal statute or regulation, as evidenced by a forensic drug or alcohol test conducted by a medical facility or laboratory licensed or certified to conduct such tests. A duplicate sample from any test conducted must be preserved and made available to the worker for purposes of a second test to be conducted at the worker’s expense. If the test indicates the presence of such substances or of alcohol at such level, it is presumed that the employee was intoxicated and that the injury was due to the intoxication. This presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.

(2) As used in this section, “non-medical benefits” means all benefits provided for in articles 40 to 47 of this title other than disbursements for medical, surgical, nursing, and hospital services, apparatus, and supplies”

The key aspects of the statute to remember are “during working hours” and “clear and convincing evidence.” These two aspects of the statute may prove problematic for both the claimant and Respondents in court. First, it is Respondents’ burden to demonstrate that the claimant was intoxicated during working hours. Most commonly, drug testing aids the Employer in confirming this first aspect of the statute. Whether it is alcohol, marijuana, or otherwise, the drug test administered shortly after the alleged injury can help aid the Employer in determining the level of intoxication that is present. Next comes the shifting burden to the claimant to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he/she was not intoxicated at the time of the incident. This is the highest burden to prove in workers’ compensation claims and usually comes with little success on the claimant’s part at hearing. Similar to the other acts reducing compensation, up to 50% can be taken against indemnity benefits for the life of the claim.

Keeping these defenses in mind will help reduce exposure for Respondents in an effective way. Should the defenses be challenged, it is important to remember that each one involves specific findings of fact that must be made by an ALJ at hearing. Should you have any questions regarding each of the defenses, please contact us for guidance prior to filing the initial admission on the claim.

in Firm Newsletters 0 comments

June 20, 2017February 26, 2018 by John Abraham

To File or Not to File? That is the Question

An incident takes place within the course and scope of claimant’s employment. Claimant is confirmed to have sustained an injury but does not miss any time from work. No permanent impairment is anticipated. What the adjuster has is characterized as what most of us refer to as a “med-only claim.” Throughout the course of the claim, claimant receives conservative treatment without any recommendation for surgery. The claimant is eventually placed at MMI with no impairment. There is no reason to challenge the claim as you believe the injury is legitimate. You’re home free! All you have to do is file the Final Admission of Liability (FAL), wait the statutory 30-day period, and when claimant fails to object, you can close your claim and move on to the next one. Right? Not exactly.

Most workers’ compensation claims are med-only claims. In fact, more than two-thirds of claims in Colorado are med-only claims that are never reported to the Division. When most carriers file a FAL due to claimant reaching MMI on a med-only claim, they do so because they are seeking finality. Perhaps the employer wants to admit in good faith and make sure that it is noted with the Division that the claimant was taken care of and that there is no challenge to the claim. Perhaps the carrier requires that a FAL be filed on all admitted claims when a claimant reaches MMI. Oftentimes, a FAL is filed on a med-only claim to avoid confusion later should something happen. Whatever the reasoning may be, the adjuster may want to think twice about filing the Final Admission of Liability on a med-only claim due to a recent Industrial Claims Appeals Office opinion and a prior Court of Appeals decision.

In Kazazian v. Vail Resorts, W.C. No. 4-915-969 (April 24, 2017), the Industrial Claims Appeals Office reversed the findings of an ALJ that found a med-only claim was closed because the Claimant failed to object to the FAL. The facts of the claim were simple: Claimant sustained an injury when she slipped and fell at work and sustained a concussion, she didn’t miss any time from work while treatment took place, and she was eventually placed at MMI without impairment by the authorized treating physician. The Employer filed a FAL based on the authorized treating physicians’ findings and the Claimant didn’t object within the statutory 30-day requirement. A significant time later, Claimant began to experience hearing loss. She went to an audiologist for treatment. The Claimant suspected that her hearing loss was due to the work-related event from a couple of years prior. The Claimant contacted the adjuster and asked that certain medical apparatuses prescribed by the audiologist be covered under the workers’ compensation claim. The adjuster refused, citing the FAL and noting that the claimant did not timely object. The claim was presumed closed.

At the hearing, the ALJ agreed with Respondents that the Claimant failed to timely object to the Final Admission and request a DIME. However, on appeal, the Panel reversed the decision and noted that a FAL that does not admit for indemnity benefits cannot serve to “close” a claim since there was nothing triggering any statutory provisions in the Act for which reopening due to a worsening of condition or requesting a DIME can be sought. Simply put, a Final Admission of Liability on a med-only claim raises no implications of closure. You cannot close something that was not significant to begin with. Citing from a Court of Appeals prior decision, “the statutory consequences of a finding of “maximum medical improvement” can apply only to injuries as to which disability indemnity is payable.” Given this caveat in the law, the ultimate question is how does an employer or insurance carrier seek closure on a med-only claim? The answer may be simpler than first thought.

By its very nature, a med-only claim is usually not an impactful claim of such severity to require reporting. In fact, the Act carves out an exception to med-only claims making it easy for employers and carriers to deal with them without being bogged down in paperwork. Section 8-43-101(1) states, “Every employer shall keep a record of all injuries that result in fatality to, or permanent physical impairment of, or lost time from work for the injured employee in excess of three shifts or calendar days and the contraction by an employee of an occupational disease that has been listed by the director by rule. Within ten days after notice or knowledge that an employee has contracted such an occupational disease, or the occurrence of a permanently physically impairing injury, or lost-time injury to an employee, or immediately in the case of a fatality, the employer shall, upon forms prescribed by the division for that purpose, report said occupational disease, permanently physically impairing injury, lost-time injury, or fatality to the division. The report shall contain such information as shall be required by the director.”

The key portion of the statute deals with lost time and permanent impairment. If neither of the requirements is met, nothing has to be reported. If one of the criteria is met, the Act requires that the insurance carrier take a position on the claim within 20 days. You may even receive a letter from the Division with big bold letters emblazoned on it indicating the insurance carrier has 20 days to file either a Notice of Contest or a General Admission or else Respondents could be sanctioned in the form of monetary penalties. When the claimant reaches MMI in a med-only claim, most carriers file a FAL; however, it may be good practice to not file anything UNLESS you receive the letter in question from the Division. Most med-only claims are closed within a few weeks or months. When a claimant comes back months, or sometimes years later, to seek additional treatment, how does one know if the problem that is allegedly occurring is due to the original event? A significant amount of time may have passed. Claimant may be working for another Employer. Should the adjuster just voluntarily admit and pay benefits? Typically, the answer is no.

Given the caveat in the law that is becoming commonplace among the courts, it is recommended not to file anything in response to a treating physicians’ placement of a claimant at MMI. This is because the carrier can always challenge the claim on causation grounds later down the road should the claimant return and want to seek additional treatment or claim that indemnity is owed. Recall that payment of medical benefits is neither an admission nor a denial under the Act. Even if the Respondents pay for treatment and characterize a claim as a med-only claim for purposes of payment, if no pleadings are ever filed with the Division, Respondents retain the right to file a Notice of Contest should a claimant return in the future seeking additional benefits. At that time, Respondents can further investigate the causation of the claimant’s ongoing complaints either through a medical records review, IME, or other means such as surveillance. Oftentimes, the mere passage of time and questioning of the claimant will give rise to answers which would allow the adjuster to deny the claim outright, even though at first the claim was payable in good faith. The overall thought is that it is much easier to challenge causation and be cautious with a Notice of Contest for further investigation than it is to go back in time and withdraw a previously filed admission, regardless of the type of admission that it is.

If you have any questions regarding what next steps to take when dealing with med-only claims, please contact us. If you get a phone call from a claimant wanting more benefits from a claim you thought was closed, please contact any of the attorneys at our firm. We will be more than happy to chat about the facts of the particular case and devise the best strategy which will hopefully avoid the reopening of a “closed” claim.

in Articles / Featured / Firm Newsletters / Recent News 0 comments

August 16, 2016February 26, 2018 by John Abraham

Investigation of Outstanding Medicaid Liens in Workers’ Compensation Claims

The Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, through its Medicaid program, is responsible for collection of outstanding liens for the state. This department is in charge of disbursement of state funds to indigent citizens in need of medical benefits. Oftentimes, a claimant will pursue medical benefits through the department if they qualify. This may be true even when a claimant has a current workers’ compensation claim on file with the Division of Labor. Qualification for a particular program, through the state funded Medicaid partnerships, involves several criteria. If a citizen qualifies, benefits may be paid regardless of the current status of a workers’ compensation claim. The Medicaid department will assert its lien, (referred to as a “recovery right”), against the claimant and the workers’ compensation claim.

A lien usually arises at one of two points in the workers’ compensation litigation. The first such instance occurs when a claim is denied by the carrier and the claimant chooses to pursue medical benefits through the applicable Medicaid programs. These claims usually involve substantial forms of medical treatment, (i.e. surgeries), in which time is of the essence and a claimant cannot wait for resolution of compensability and causation issues in their workers’ compensation claims. The claimant may choose to obtain the surgery through the authorized treating physicians or through their own personal care physician. Should the claim be found compensable by an ALJ, it is important to distinguish between the benefits provided and through which physicians the claimant received treatment. Regardless of the legal arguments to be made, Medicaid will assert its right of recovery against the benefits paid and will await resolution of the claim before doing so.

The second such instance occurs when a claimant has received medical benefits through the state funded Medicaid program and the treating physician finds a particular treatment to either be related to the claim, (or not related to the claim). The benefits are disputed through the workers’ compensation process, and the claimant obtains treatment without waiting for resolution of the workers’ compensation issues. In this example, the opinions from the treating physicians will be important in determining liability for the outstanding lien. If a treating physician deems the medical benefits to be related to the claim, and the claim is resolved through a settlement or other means, the carrier will be liable for payment of the lien. Recovery of the lien cannot be shifted by the parties in the workers’ compensation claim. However, if the treating physicians deemed the treatment to be non-work related, the carrier may be able to dismiss any causes of action by providing the opinions of the physicians to the proper investigative authorities within the department.

Legislative Authority

Colorado’s Medicaid programs derive their authority from one main portion of section 25.5 of the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing Act. Section 25.5-4-301(5)(a), C.R.S. states, “When the state department has furnished medical assistance to or on behalf of a recipient pursuant to the provisions of this article, and articles 5 and 6 of this title, for which a third party is liable, the state department shall have an automatic statutory lien for all such medical assistance. The state department’s lien shall be against any judgment, award, or settlement in a suit or claim against such third party and shall be in an amount that shall be the fullest extent allowed by federal law as applicable in this state, but not to exceed the amount of the medical assistance provided.”

Additionally, section 25.5-4-301, C.R.S. states, “When the applicant or recipient, or his or her guardian, executor, administrator, or other appropriate representative, brings an action or asserts a claim against any third party, such person shall give to the state department written notice of the action or claim by personal service or certified mail within fifteen days after filing the action or asserting the claim. Failure to comply with this subsection (6) shall make the recipient, legal guardian, executor, administrator, attorney, or other representative liable for the entire amount of medical assistance furnished to or on behalf of the recipient for the injuries that gave rise to the action or claim. The state department may, after thirty days’ written notice to such person, enforce its rights under subsection (5) of this section and this subsection (6) in the district court of the city and county of Denver; except that liability of a person other than the recipient shall exist only if such person had knowledge that the recipient had received medical assistance or if excusable neglect is found by the court. The court shall award the state department its costs and attorney fees incurred in the prosecution of any such action.” (Emphasis added)

Lastly, section 25.5-4-301(5)(b) states, “No judgment, award, or settlement in any action or claim by a recipient to recover damages for injuries, where the state department has a lien, shall be satisfied without first satisfying the state department’s lien. Failure by any party to the judgment, award, or settlement to comply with this section shall make each such party liable for the full amount of medical assistance furnished to or on behalf of the recipient for the injuries that are the subject of the judgment, award, or settlement.”

These three portions of the statute are important to remember prior to resolving any workers’ compensation claim. Specifically, if the carrier or the insured has any knowledge that Medicaid paid for any potential treatment in connection with the workers’ compensation claim, the carrier must investigate and contact the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to inquire about any potential liens. The duty to investigate is not on Medicaid or the State of Colorado, but rather the duty rests with each party to the workers’ compensation claim. Failure to notify Medicaid prior to resolution of the workers’ compensation claims will cause the outstanding balance to become due and owing in full unless a separate argument can be made regarding the medical benefits provided to the claimant recipient. This is the case regardless of any language placed into any agreements, stipulations, settlements, or the like that are agreed upon between the parties.

Recommendations

The carrier and the Employer, (either through counsel or individually), should always investigate whether any Medicaid liens exist at the state level. Outstanding Medicaid liens differ from other liens due to the duty imposed on the carrier through statute. Failure to investigate any outstanding liens could lead to potential reopening of claims long after they have been resolved. Investigation could happen in a number of ways. The simplest way involves contacting the department in writing and providing the identifying information of the claimant to search for any liens. The department will usually respond within a few days notifying the carrier of any issues. However, this manner may be problematic for adjusters especially in light of the volume of claims at any given time. If counsel is assigned, the inquiry can be made by email or through general discovery pending on a litigated claim. Discovery responses from the claimant can reveal receipt of any benefits through Medicaid or otherwise.

For more information about specific Medicaid issues on any workers’ compensation claims and recovery of liens, please feel free to contact us. References about the Colorado Medicaid programs can be found here.

in Articles / Blog / Featured / Firm Newsletters / Recent News 0 comments