Defense Base Act Compensation Blog

The Modern Day DBA Casualty

Veterans Administration and Department of Labor contract IME’s to company that does DME’s

Posted by defensebaseactcomp on July 8, 2010

We Call Foul, MES Solutions does Defense Medical Examinations for CNA but the DoL puts them in charge of Independent Medical Examinations that must not be done by doctors who work for insurance companies.

Contractors are not the only ones our Government has sold out what is supposed to be an unbiased and fair medical examination to determine “Alleged” disability ratings.

These Doctors who get paid by insurance companies to help deny Disabled Contractors the benefits the taxpayers already paid for are also paid to help deny Disabled Veterans the benefits our country promised them.

Veterans helping Deny Veterans?

Sounds a lot like Biased Military Veteran DoL ALJ helping deny Disabled  Contractors many of whom are Veterans based on the testimony of a Fraudulent Defense Medical Doctors testimony.

LHWCA 907  (i)

) Physicians’ ineligibility for subsection (e) physical examinations and reviews because of workmen’s compensation claim employment or fee acceptance or participation.

Unless the parties to the claim agree, the Secretary shall not employ or select any physician for the purpose of making examinations or reviews under subsection (e) of this section who, during such employment, or during the period of two years prior to such employment, has been employed by, or accepted or participated in any fee relating to a workmen’s compensation claim from any insurance carrier or any self-insurer.

MES Solutions Awarded Contract to United States Department of Labor Office of Workers Compensation Programs

HOUSTON, June 8 /PRNewswire/ — MES Solutions announced today the award of the United States Department of Labor Office of  Workers Compensation Programs contract for the Seattle District Office. The OWCP administers four major disability compensation programs which provide wage replacement benefits, medical treatment, vocational rehabilitation and other benefits to certain workers or their dependents that experience work-related injury or occupational disease.

The contract covers the following jurisdictions: Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska. As the recognized national leader in the areas of workers’ compensation, disability, and auto liability medical evaluations, MES Solutions brings over 30 years of medical evaluation experience to assist the Department of Labor in processing Second Opinion Examinations and Schedule Awards.

Now According to the Department of Labor a “Second Opinion” IS a Defense Medical Examination.

One Response to “Veterans Administration and Department of Labor contract IME’s to company that does DME’s”

  1. brit guy said

    I am at total loss with all of this.

    How can the US government continue to abuse their own rules and regulations?

    But also a word of warning.

    I had a Defence medical exam that is I was sent to see a Doctor of the insurance companies choice.
    He carried out a physical examination he provided his report to the insurers.

    At the informal conference however this report was never mentioned instead the insurance company relied on a report prepared by another Doctor who they appointed to review the report who surprise, surprise disagreed with the examining Doctor.

    Bear in mind that this was the insurance companies choice of doctor.
    A medical expert in his field and a teacher and lecturer at several American universities. He also teaches fellow surgeons in techniques for foot and ankle surgery and is recognized as one of the worlds leading pioneers in his chosen field.

    The reviewing Doctor had no access to the x-rays or the CAT scans or the MRIS but it was his opinion they relied on at the informal conference.

    So it does not matter what the defense medical examining doctor says it would not matter what the second opinion says. If it is not what they want to here then they will use whatever and whoever to get what they want.

    In my country this is called fraud.

    Here is a link to the law in the UK but have posted the first few pages.

    I hope the people doing this travel to the UK as they would all be arrested and subject to the full force of our legal system.

    Because they have been kind enough to provide all the evidence by way of email.

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060035_en.pdf

    Fraud Act 2006
    CHAPTER 35
    CONTENTS
    Fraud
    1 Fraud
    2 Fraud by false representation
    3 Fraud by failing to disclose information
    4 Fraud by abuse of position
    5 “Gain” and “loss”
    6 Possession etc. of articles for use in frauds
    7 Making or supplying articles for use in frauds
    8 “Article”
    9 Participating in fraudulent business carried on by sole trader etc.
    10 Participating in fraudulent business carried on by company etc.: penalty
    Obtaining services dishonestly
    11 Obtaining services dishonestly
    Supplementary
    12 Liability of company officers for offences by company
    13 Evidence
    14 Minor and consequential amendments etc.
    15 Commencement and extent
    16 Short title
    Schedule 1 — Minor and consequential amendments
    Schedule 2 — Transitional provisions and savings
    Schedule 3 — Repeals and revocations
    ELIZABETH II c. 35
    Fraud Act 2006
    2006 CHAPTER 35
    An Act to make provision for, and in connection with, criminal liability for
    fraud and obtaining services dishonestly. [8th November 2006]
    E IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and
    consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present
    Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
    Fraud
    1 Fraud
    (1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in
    subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
    (2) The sections are—
    (a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
    (b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
    (c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
    (3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—
    (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12
    months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
    (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
    10 years or to a fine (or to both).
    (4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12
    months were a reference to 6 months.
    2 Fraud by false representation
    (1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
    (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
    (b) intends, by making the representation—
    B
    2 Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35)
    (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
    (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
    (2) A representation is false if—
    (a) it is untrue or misleading, and
    (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
    (3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a
    representation as to the state of mind of—
    (a) the person making the representation, or
    (b) any other person.
    (4) A representation may be express or implied.
    (5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it
    (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device
    designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without
    human intervention).
    3 Fraud by failing to disclose information
    A person is in breach of this section if he—
    (a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is
    under a legal duty to disclose, and
    (b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—
    (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
    (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
    4 Fraud by abuse of position
    (1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
    (a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act
    against, the financial interests of another person,
    (b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
    (c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
    (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
    (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
    (2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his
    conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: