All’s Fair in Love and AIG WAR? No Ethics ?

Defense Base Act Claimants really are in another War Zone when they must file a DBA Claim.

As it turns out many, too many, of the Plaintiff’s own Attorneys are aiding and abetting the enemy

Last January ALJ  Berlin awarded the Dill Widow DBA Death Benefits in a very important PTSD/Suicide Claim.

This claim was denied for five years while Wade Dill’s  widow Barbara’s integrity was brutally attacked as though she had pulled the trigger herself.

KBR refused to supply Wade Dill’s medical records and other reports which would have exposed the state of mind he was in while still in Iraq.  But it is OK to defy discovery if you are AIG/KBR-SEII.  Do not try this yourself, you’ll lose your claim.

Dennis Nalick was the Attorney who brought this claim to a successful decision. 

Barbara Dill’s next Attorney, Bruce H Nicholson, refused to address misinformation in the records saying “you won the claim why would you want to mess with it”.

Mr Nicholson refuted any suggestion that this very important decision would be appealed.  He went so far as to tell the Widow that she should discontinue corresponding with those who assured her it would be.  Bad people we are, just trying to upset her needlessly.

AIG KBR SEII via Michael Thomas appealed the decision.

Mr Nicholson never responded to the Benefits Review Board on behalf of the Widow though he assured her he was on top of it and he and the widow corresponded regularly.

On February 28 the BRB overturned the ALJ’s decision, unopposed.  The widow was not represented at all.

Mr. Nicholson was though, prior to this decision, negotiating a “settlement” with Michael Thomas and AIG which would take this important PTSD Suicide decision out of this WAR as case law for all impending and future PTSD Suicide claims.  The same Mr Nicholson who posted here at the blog in response to the award:

“The decision represents a sound road map for work related contractor suicide claims and is unlikely to be overturned when followed.”

We ask, is no one in this wretched biased system held to any standard of ethical practice?

Mr Nicholson was responsible for representing the Widow and he did not.

Would it not have been a requirement of those who were involved in this to make the widow aware, to speak up?

We do not kid ourselves that this was simply a case of friendly fire.  There was too much at stake here.

Defense Base Act Attorney Alert

At the risk of sounding repetitive:

It is NEVER a good thing when your DBA Attorney/Lawyer is not returning your calls and emails

It is NEVER a good thing when your DBA Attorney/Lawyer is not sending you copies of correspondence and actions on your claim

It is NEVER a good thing when your DBA Attorney/Lawyer refuses to send evidence to the DoL Claims Examiner when asked to do so

It is NEVER a good thing when you never receive copies of actions on your claim from the DoL

If your DBA Attorney/Lawyer is, or ever was, Bruce Nicholson, or

If your DBA Attorney/Lawyer was Dennis Nalick and you left your file with Matthew Singer or

If your DBA Attorney/Lawyer is one of the sign em and stack em high volume, low results, insurance company favorites or

If your DBA Attorney/Lawyer does not have malpractice insurance (it is not required to handle DBA claims)……

Remember that it is you and your families future at stake and stay on top of your claim

Because these DBA Attorneys/Lawyers are saving the insurance companies millions of dollars on the backs of widows and disabled contractors

YOU must do this for yourself and do it when you first begin to have doubts

Insurance Companies buy Republican US Senator, among others, to Further Deny Your Rights under the DBA

S. 669: Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act Amendments of 2011

Here's Johnny !!

Johnny Isakson of Georgia has presented Bill S. 669 to the Senate which has been referred to a committee on which he sits, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, for deliberation, investigation, and revision.

TRACK THIS BILL

Bill S.669 was introduced AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY IT”S SPONSOR who is Senator Johnny Isakson, who is heavily supported by Insurance Companies and Attorneys who stand to reap ever larger profits than they already do if this bill were to become law.

Nearly every aspect of the Bill would be a huge present to the Defense Base Act Insurance business.

Johnny is looking out for the insurance companies and attorneys

This grim reaper sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee as well.

Johnny Isakson can be contacted at 202-224-3643.

1175 Peachtree St Ne
Atlanta, GA 30361
Phone : (404) 347-2202

The following is from the Johnny Isakson page at MapLight.org

Total Campaign Contributions Received by Johnny Isakson: $8,231,997

Interest	Contributions
Real Estate	$854,942
Lawyers/Law Firms	$449,582
Health Professionals	$298,416
Insurance	$251,650
Banks and Credit	$236,150
Lobbyists	$214,261
Securities & Investment	$200,500
Misc Finance	$178,075
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$167,500

Appointment of Miranda Chiu DIRECTOR, DLHWC

This news release at the DoL’s website is NOT dated but this was a recent appointment though she has been in the position for nearly a year now.

Miranda Chiu  is much appreciated by the Defense Attorneys

Dropping the DBA Ball

She did not even implement her own policies, regulations, and procedures

Looks like DBA Claimants are in for a lot more of the same bias in favor of the insurance companies if the last nine years serve as an indicator

The Office of Workers’ Comp Programs announces the appointment of Ms. Miranda Chiu as the Director of the Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation. Ms. Chiu has served as Acting Director of the Longshore Division for the last eight months, and as the Division’s Chief of the Branch of Policies, Regulations and Procedures for eight years before that.

Ms. Chiu has extensive experience in Longshore claims. She worked in various capacities in the Longshore arena for thirty years, beginning as a Claims Examiner in the San Francisco Longshore district office, then as a maritime claims supervisor in private industry and a legal assistant at a major Longshore law firm, before taking on her duties as Branch Chief in 2002.

Ms. Chiu holds a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature, and has published a lead article in ‘The Longshore Textbook’, 2nd and 3rd Editions. She is a frequent speaker at industry seminars and educational events and has won numerous awards for her work at the Department of Labor

Text of S. 669: Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act Amendments of 2011

A bill re-introduced in the United States Senate and backed by maritime insurers and employers

would substantially reform existing Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act procedures

and the benefits afforded injured and sick workers.

A Bill

To ammend the Longshore Harborworker’s Compensation Act to improve the compensation system and

for other purposes.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-669

PTSD, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Claims to be Expedited

According to a Department of Labor’s DBA Claims Administration Status Report dated October 2008

DELAYED CLAIMS DECISIONS ADD TO THE STRESS AND ANXIETY OF THE CLAIMANT

A PTSD claim is presumed to compensible under the Act unless rebutted by substantial evidence

Fast Track PTSD cases through the dispute resolution process

ASSIST the parties to gather factual and medical evidence needed for claims resolution

Schedule informal conferences promptly on request

After Conference if OWCP claims examiners recommendations are rejected, refer the case promptly for hearing upon request.

Corrupt Legal System sounds familiar

So what have you learned as a legal intern?

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act

Feb 18, 2011 – Los Angeles, CA – Just one week after oral arguments were presented, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued its decision in California United Terminals vs. Towne. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition for the case to be reviewed, thus holding employers responsible for the injured party’s (the Claimant’s) litigation costs associated with successful prosecution of legitimate workers compensation claims. The 9th Circuit Court’s decision helps to preserve the purpose and integrity of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act – to provide fair and timely compensation to injured workers.

“We are pleased that the 9th Circuit is sending a clear message to employers and their insurance carriers – to stop denying legitimate claims by prolonging and increasing the cost of litigation,” said Charles D. Naylor of the Law Offices of Charles D. Naylor (http://www.NaylorLaw.com), a Los Angeles-based law firm specializing in maritime and admiralty law.

“Had the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of California United Terminals, it would have set legal precedent allowing employers to continue their practice of denying medical treatment and delaying payment of legitimate compensation claims.

It would have forced the injured worker to absorb the cost of the employer’s legal shenanigans, making the claims process too risky for injured workers and thus completely ineffective.”

California United Terminals is now likely to ask the United States Supreme Court to hear the case, which they must do within 90 days.

In 2002, Sandra Towne, a 59 year Marine Clerk, was diagnosed with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, an injury that is most commonly the result of repetitive trauma over time. After conservative, non-surgical care failed, she needed surgery. Towne filed a claim to receive benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) which provides benefits including medical care compensation for temporary disability at 2/3 of average wages while off work and recovering. When her claim was denied, she retained Charles D. Naylor.

“The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act is meant to provide very basic level of compensation and it’s supposed to be made available to those that are injured without the need for an attorney or any litigation,” said Charles D. Naylor, who has represented Ms. Towne since 2002 and has handled hundreds of Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act claims throughout his 35-year career.

While seeking conservative treatment, Towne continued to work on the waterfront. Like most longshore workers and marine clerks on the West Coast, Towne received work assignments at the union dispatch hall and often worked for a different employer from day to day.

The law applying the LHWCA is very clear on the following:

• The last employer where a worker is exposed to repetitive trauma is responsible to provide compensation benefits to a worker injured by repetitive trauma.
• If the injured worker has to retain an attorney to collect benefits, and is ultimately successful, the employer is responsible for the Claimant’s attorney’s fees.

Two and a half years after she was diagnosed, Towne’s then employer, California United Terminals, Inc., agreed to pay for the surgery she needed after being joined in the litigation by the judge. In trial court, and before the Benefits Review Board, California United Terminals was ordered to pay all of Claimant’s attorney’s fees.

California United Terminals (CUT) took the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 8, 2011, CUT argued that they are only responsible for fees during a 13 day period, at most, out of the eight and one half years of litigation, and that the remainder should come out of Towne’s pocket.

The Law Offices of Charles D. Naylor, along with Joshua Gillelan II, Esq. of the Longshore Claimants’ National Law Center, represented Ms. Towne.

An audio transcript of the oral arguments and a copy of the Court’s decision (Memorandum) can be found on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals website. See the original press release by Charles D Naylor here

Longshore and Defense Base Act Reasonable Hourly Rate Determination

Longshore Act: Reasonable Hourly Rate Determination – Overview of Recent Decisions

Posted by the BRB Staff at Lexis Nexis

By Yelena Zaslavskaya
Senior Attorney for Longshore, Office of Administrative Law Judges
U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.

A. The Governing Law

Section 28 of the Longshore Act, 33 U.S.C.S. § 928, provides for an award of a “reasonable attorney’s fee” to a prevailing claimant’s attorney payable by employer (Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.S. § 901 et seq.).

See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 702.132, 802.203.

Section 702.132(a) provides that a fee application must indicate the normal billing rate for each person who performed services on behalf of the claimant. The regulations further provide that any attorney’s fee approved shall be reasonably commensurate with the necessary work done and shall take into account the quality of the representation, the complexity of the legal issues involved, and the amount of benefits awarded.[FN2] 20 C.F.R. § 702.132(a),

see also 20 C.F.R. § 802.203(e).[FN3] In addition, case law addressing what constitutes a reasonable fee under other federal fee-shifting statutes is also applicable to fee determinations under the LHWCA. See City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 120 L. Ed. 2d 449, 112 S. Ct. 2638 (1992); see also Stanhope v. Elec. Boat Corp., 44 BRBS 107 (2010) (and cases cited therein). 

Continue reading this post with corresponding case law here

From the Longshore Manual

1. Determination of Reasonable Legal Fee.
   1. In determining whether a fee is reasonable, a number of factors must be considered. A partial list of factors is provided in subparagraph 7b, below, but it is not all-inclusive. Although there may be a broad agreement on the factors to be considered in setting fees, in practice the standards of what is appropriate compensation for claimant’s counsel vary markedly from one State to another (The Law of Workmen’s Compensation, Arthur Larson). The variation is reflected not only in statutory limits but also in administrative and judicial decisions.
   2. The following factors should be considered in determining a reasonable legal fee (See 20 C.F.R. section 702.132):
      1. Usefulness and necessity of the representative’s services to the claimant.
      2. Nature and complexity of the claim.
      3. Actual necessary work performed (the itemization showing the dates on which services were performed, brief descriptions of services, time spent on each, and the amount of fees requested. Time spent in preparation of a fee application is a appropriate factor to be considered in the determination of a reasonable attorney fee). (See LHWCA Circular No 97-01).
      4. Amount of benefits involved.
      5. Customary local charges for similar services.
      6. Professional qualifications of the representative.
      7. When the fee is to be assessed against the claimant, the financial circumstances of the claimant are also to be taken into account.
      8. Enhancement for extraordinary delay in receiving payment. (See Anderson vs. Director 30 BRBS 67 (CRT) and LHWCA Circular No 97-01).
      9. Whether the fee is reasonable in relation to the results obtained. [(See Bullock v. Ingalls Shipbuilding 27 BRBS 90, July 16, 1993, for a decision of the two-prong test under Hensley vs. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 1983).]
   3. In considering the factors above, emphasis is given to the factor in subparagraph 7b(1), above. Before considering the other factors, the necessity or usefulness of the representative’s services should be considered. If the necessity for the service is questionable, the fee should be kept to a minimum. Many States prescribe, by statute or administrative regulation, the maximum dollar or percentage amount which can be charged. Others permit a sliding scale which allows certain percentages on various portions of the award.Since almost all States in one way or another regulate the amount of legal fees for claimants’ representatives, any person approving a legal fee under this act should be aware of the various States’ workers’ compensation laws governing attorney’s fees in that DO’s jurisdiction.
   4. If the requested fee is reduced, the DD must advise the attorney or representative in writing of the reduction, and state the reason(s) for the reduction. This may be stated in the compensation order approving the fee or in a letter accompanying the compensation order; however, any change must be justified. The recipient of a fee for representation of a claimant, if dissatisfied with the amount awarded, may appeal to the Benefits Review Board (BRB) for a review of the award.
   5. In the absence of collusion, when the parties in arm’s length settlement negotiation have reached an agreement on the amount of the fee which is the responsibility of the employer/carrier, the DD should approve the fee unless it is clearly excessive (Ballard v General Dynamics, 12 BRBS 966 (1980) and Watkins v Ingalls, 26 BRBS 179 (1993)).

Yes, there is a Longshore Conference March 24-25, 2011

Annual Longshore Conference Spring 2011

Loyola Again of course and promoting Roger Levy’s Latest Edition of the DBA/WHCA  Book

NEW LOCATION!

InterContinental Hotel New Orleans, Louisiana

March 24 – 25, 2011

Will update with registration links

Schedule