Dear Representative Kucinich
Dear Rep. Dennis Kucinich,
Has AIG any credibility left?
Open any newspaper and AIG jumps out at you in big, black letters.
Mention AIG and you get a look of disgust and a full understanding requiring nothing more said.
Congress convenes a hearing.
Unfortunately, unless the committee has reviewed multiple case files, examined how the insurance company absolved themselves of liability, tracked the effects and examined how the chain of events intertwine and unfold, how can the right questions be asked?
And, if they do, what do they do with the answers? Can they separate the truth from the lies? Can they ID and challenge bogus, PR, or self-defense testimony?
Why does the OALJ overlook criminal violations of the Longshore Act and the United States Code they find in conducting formal hearings?
(Iraq and Afghanistan has been sending us back broken bodies for how many years now?)
The insurance company terminates a war-injured’s life (disability compensation and medical treatment) using Federal Forms LS-207 and 208 based on allegations they list in Box 12 of the form. The insurance company’s termination results in medical and financial damage to the injured. They cannot work so they cannot pay their bills. The family suffers.
This suffering is based on allegations the insurance company is not required to substantiate prior to terminating life. The insurance company could charge a quadriplegic with running a marathon on free weekends, terminate his life and not worry about the DOL’s acceptance.
If the war injured provides the DOL evidence showing the allegations the terminator listed in Box 12 were false, the form is not flagged for further investigation or sent to any other agency or office for action. It is buried in one man’s file amongst thousands of other files. The man-hours required to dig these phony forms out to see if any suspicious pattern emerges would be formidable. DOL’s claim examiners see this every day.
Is this not tantamount to stumbling over a rape victim and saying nothing?
Suggestion: Randomly select LS-207 & 208 forms from a pile of those used by the insurance companies to terminate their liability to a war-injured. Ask the insurance company representative the Committee has called before them to explain. I would be surprised if the insurance rep was unable to drag up individual cases at will on his laptop.
Second, look for patterns and then call the insurance claims adjusters before the Committee for questions. Use their answers to form additional questions.
Did the termination of this war-injured’s medical treatment for X (months, years), lead to exacerbation of the injury? Did this delay increase the cost charged to the taxpayer?
Let’s examine the billing of Case xx-xxxx.
Were the charges in Box 12 proven to be factual, legitimate?
How much money was charged back to the taxpayer for attorney fees and court costs?
How much money did the insurance company profit (or lose) from this case?
Compare the cost of the legal action vs. the cost of the medical treatment controverted.
Was the insurance company able to charge back more money to the taxpayer by sending the case to legal rather than covering the medical treatment of the injured?
Let’s examine Case xx-xxxx.
Who made the decision and what facts dictated the selected course of action?
Was any additional information requested from the injured before the company denied his life?
What was the result of these terminations?
Did the case go all the way to a formal hearing?
Was it settled before or after a formal hearing date was scheduled?
Has any settlement included a “non-disclosure” stipulation?
If yes, why would a case controverting benefits for a war-injured need a non-disclosure clause?
Does an increase in cases controverted and turned over to law firms have a corresponding increase in administrative fees billed to and paid by the taxpayer?
Examine the cases looking for a pattern of Forced Desperation & Settlement.
Were the denied claimant forced into financial desperation by the IC’s termination of benefits?
Were the reasons for controversion listed in Box 12 of the LS forms legitimate?
Did the claimant agree to the IC’s offered settlement solely out of a driving need to feed his family?
Did any representative of the IC, at any time, access the claimant’s credit reports?
If yes, work up a timeline.
In cases grouped by similarities, were there any common threads?
Claim adjuster? Lawyer? Law firm?
Are any of the claim’s adjusters assigned and reassigned on cases?
(IC: Of course, to redistribute case loads to provide better service to the claimant. Really?)
Do these reassignments cause a delay in the resolution of cases; delays in medical treatments or the reinstatement of benefits?
Are the claimant’s receiving their benefits when these reassignments take place?
Are those benefits controverted?
Are the reassignments logistic or strategic?
Why send a claimant 102.8 miles from home to attend an Independent Evaluation when 17 qualified doctors are available within 20 miles of the claimant’s home?
Why were these particular IMEs selected?
Can they be truly considered “Independent” when the sole survival of their practice depends on working for and testifying for insurance company interests?
Are these IMEs as up-to-date on procedures and diagnostics as are those 17/20 DOCs who actually cut into the human body?
Why is video-documenting the IME’s evaluation objected to by the IC?
Documenting the evaluation would affirm that what the IME finds is what the IME writes in his report.
Want to add your own questions? Use the comment form. Don’t ask me your question(s), aim it for the Committee. I cannot guarantee the Committee will even read them, but I will guarantee they will know they are there. Hint: know the answer before asking the question, if possible.
***These pages faxed to Committee and posted here**
T. Lee Marshall “Streetgang”
KBR Convoy Bulk Fuel Truck Driver
LSA Anaconda, Balad, Iraq 2004-2005