Defense Base Act Compensation Blog

The Modern Day DBA Casualty

Archive for the ‘DBA Attorneys Fees’ Category

Nine Years Ago Today, Still getting screwed over by CNA !

Posted by defensebaseactcomp on July 6, 2012

July 7, 2003

Nine years ago you get that phone call you hoped you’d never get

But hey they say, not to worry, the insurance company will take care of everything

Heart is breaking but not to worry

Everything, they say, will be OK

Good thing we’ve been paying for good medical insurance

No way of knowing that the “insurance” was Defense Base Act through CNA, a policy we had never heard of,  looked at, or signed for

Or that  Administrative Law Judge Paul C Johnson would deem his injuries to be alleged when denying him his rights under the DBA

One day we’ll look back at this and be so grateful for our blessings, for what we’ve overcome………

But one day never comes

What’s that in the way?

CNA 

CNA with the assistance of the Department of Labor District Office in Jacksonville

From failing to provide a medical evacuation and abandoning him to the military medical system to defaulting on the order to provide his medical care for nearly two years now after denying for six years.

CNA, their Claims Adjusters, their overly zealous legal representation, and the biased Department of Labor District Office have caused much more physical, mental, and financial  damage than there ever had to be. 

What should have been temporary disabilities have become permanent.

CNA has denied the looking back one day, the moving forward, the healing

If CNA had simply lived up to their responsibilities rather than playing paper games this family would have long moved on

And the US Taxpayers would not be paying ever more to the War Profiteers CNA and their “representation”

Documents showed that CNA reported the highest profits margins, taking in nearly 50 percent more in premiums than it paid out in benefits.

Posted in AIG and CNA, Civilian Contractors, Contractor Casualties and Missing, DBA Attorneys Fees, Defense Base Act, Defense Base Act Attorneys, Defense Base Act Insurance, Defense Base Act Law and Procedure, Defense Base Act Lawyers, Delay, Deny, Department of Labor, Dropping the DBA Ball, Exclusive Remedy, Hope that I die, Interviews with Injured War Zone Contractors, Iraq, Leishmaniasis, Misjudgements, OALJ, Political Watch, PTSD and TBI, Racketeering, Veterans | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Defense Base Act War Hazards Act: Overly Zealous Representation in Defending Against a DBA Claim

Posted by defensebaseactcomp on June 27, 2012

employer/carrier’s inadequate or overly zealous representation in defending against a DBA claim may be grounds for denying all or some portion of a request for WHCA reimbursement.

So Mr Rayburn how many War Hazards reimbursements has the DFEC denied

in part or whole over the following

Overly Zealous DBA Insurance Company Defense Tactics ?

The use of repeated Defense Medical Examinations with Doctors Over Paid to produce a report detrimental to the claimant, to run them through the drill

—————————————————

The claims process being drug out for as long as nine years with no end in sight while the defense racks up ever more legal fees, the insco keeps charging administrative fees, not to mention the claimants attorneys fee’s, while the claimant goes without  medical and/or indemnity

—————————————————

Unnecessary mileage, airfare, lodging, expenses paid out due to due coercing claimants to travel as far as five states away to attend Defense Medical Examinations, Mediations, Depositions, Hearings

—————————————————

The use of private investigators, some even criminals themselves, to stalk and intimidate injured contractors and their families far beyond simply confirming a claimants status

—————————————————

The use of  Third Party Administrators to handle claims processes that could easily be done without the added expense and fees.

—————————————————

Unnecessary fines and interest due to non payment or late payment of  indemnity

—————————————————-

The financial ruination of injured contractors and their families caused by the overly zealous controverting of legitimate claims

—————————————————-

The Temporary Disabilities which are now Permanent due to their failure to provide medical care under the guise of investigating clearly legitimate claims.  Now the US taxpayer is responsible for disabilities far beyond what they ever had to be.

—————————————————

The PTSD Suicides caused by the Insurance Companies, their claims examiners, and their attorneys

—————————————————

The break up of families caused the constant pressure and abusive tactics used by the Employer/Carrier

—————————————————

The forced acceptance of inadequate settlements or stipulated agreements due to starving the claimant out for years on end and/or threatening the claimant and family that if they do not accept the inadequate settlement they will make them miserable for the rest of their lives (see The Weaponization of the Defense Medical Examination)

—————————————————

Unfairly denying the claimants attorneys fees in order to discourage good attorneys from handling these claims

————————————————–

FECA BULLETIN NO. 12-01

XI. Miscellaneous

1. DFEC requires, before acceptance of any WHCA reimbursement claim, that the employer/carrier has made only reasonable and prudent efforts in presenting all meritorious defenses against a DBA claim without regard to whether the case is eligible for WHCA reimbursement. An employer/carrier’s inadequate or overly zealous representation in defending against a DBA claim may be grounds for denying all or some portion of a request for WHCA reimbursement.

CECILY A. RAYBURN
Director, Division of Planning, Policy and Standards

Posted in ACE, AIG and CNA, Chartis, Civilian Contractors, Contractor Casualties and Missing, DBA Attorneys Fees, Defense Base Act, Defense Base Act Attorneys, Defense Base Act Insurance, Defense Base Act Law and Procedure, Defense Base Act Lawyers, Delay, Deny, Department of Labor, Hope that I die, Injured Contractors, KBR, Political Watch, PTSD and TBI, Suicide, Veterans, War Hazards Act | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Defense Base Act: The Weaponization of the Defense Medical Examination

Posted by defensebaseactcomp on May 15, 2012

The Defense Base Act Insurance Company is entitled to have Defense Base Act Claimants see a physician that they choose to provide them with a second opinion regards the injuries that you have filed a claim for.  These examinations are in no way Independent Medical Examinations as the Insurance Company and their Attorneys deceptively refer to them as.

These Insurance Company Second Opinions, or Defense Medical Examinations, come at a heavy price to the US Taxpayer.  The Insurance Companies pay much higher amounts to hire doctors that will give them a report unfavorable to your claim and also be willingly to back up these statements in Depositions or straight to a Judges face at hearing.  You are entitled to reimbursement for the expenses you incur attending these.  The DME can be a very expensive undertaking.

Very few DBA Claimants exercise their rights to have these doctors researched by a professional, not travel outside of their geographic area, take an advocate with them (preferably your attorney or a nurse), have the scope and purpose of the Examination clearly defined, or most importantly to video the examination

It must be you who pursues these protections because your DBA Attorney is not likely to suggest or pay for them despite your entitlement to them.  Your attorneys failure to assert your rights only enables the insurance companies and their bloodthirsty attorneys and claims adjusters.

You are required to “cooperate” not play dead.

One very prudent restriction on these DME’s used to be that the Insurance Company could not make you attend one more than every three years.  At some point that we cannot ascertain this restriction was removed. 

So  began the Weaponization of the DBA Defense Medical Examination.

Currently the DME is being utilized as a weapon to intimidate DBA Claimants to accept negligent settlements.

Even though you have an order in place you are told if you do not immediately attend a DME your payments will cease immediately.

Even though your claim is currently under the jurisdiction of an ALJ awaiting a decision you are told to fly across country for several days of DME’s.   Just prepping you for the settlement offer.

Your attorney presents to you a ridiculous offer for settlement along with the threat that if you do not accept it the Insurance Companies Attorney promises you DME’s every year and surveillance by their private dicks $$$ for the rest of your life.

We cannot always be certain who is manning the weapon.  As of late there is a barrage of Friendly Fire.

No doubt that the casualties are always the DBA Claimant and the US Taxpayer.

It has never been more true that After Injury the Battle Begins

Or more clear that this program is lacking oversight of any kind

Posted in ACE, AIG and CNA, Civilian Contractors, DBA Attorneys Fees, Defense Base Act, Defense Base Act Attorneys, Defense Base Act Insurance, Defense Base Act Law and Procedure, Defense Base Act Lawyers, Defense Medical Examinations, Department of Labor, Dropping the DBA Ball, Follow the Money, Independent Medical Examinations, LHWCA Longshore Harbor Workers Compesnation Act, Misjudgements, Political Watch, PTSD and TBI, Racketeering | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Department of Labor District Offices Dead in the Water

Posted by defensebaseactcomp on December 16, 2011

Posted in ACE, AIG and CNA, Blackwater, Civilian Contractors, Contractor Casualties and Missing, DBA Attorneys Fees, Defense Base Act, Defense Base Act Insurance, Defense Base Act Law and Procedure, Department of Labor, Dropping the DBA Ball, Follow the Money, Injured Contractors, LHWCA Longshore Harbor Workers Compesnation Act, Melt Down, Political Watch, PTSD and TBI, Ronco Consultilng, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Department of Labor holding Defense Base Act Claims Hostage

Posted by defensebaseactcomp on October 20, 2011

The Department of Labor has been denying Defense Base Act Claimants the informal hearings that are required under the Act in order for your attorney to get paid among other things.

The Department of Labor itself made it very clear that an informal hearing must be held and a Claims Examiner must recommend that a claimants attorney be paid.

The Informal Conference is an integral step in the drawn out process claimants must endure.  The DoL Claims Examiner’s recommendations are only acted upon if they go against the injured contractor but still the Informal must be held.

But for many months now the Department of Labor has been denying claimants Informal Conferences. We have no way of knowing how many claims are being held hostage on the desks of the District Directors and Claims Examiners.

Claimants in this Administrative Law System are already being denied many of their constitutional rights.  Claimants are suffering ever more serious and permanent injury due to a lack of medical care while the DoL sits on their claims.

How many claimants with untreated PTSD and TBI will commit suicide during this Department of Labor embargo?

Is this not physical abuse and how much more of it before this is considered denial of “Due Process” ?

Due process is best defined in one word–fairness. Throughout the U.S.’s history, its constitutions, statutes and case law have provided standards for fair treatment of citizens by federal, state and local governments. These standards are known as due process. When a person is treated unfairly by the government, including the courts, he is said to have been deprived of or denied due process.

Defense Base Act Claimants have fewer rights under the law than convicted criminals.

Posted in ACE, AIG and CNA, Civilian Contractors, DBA Attorneys Fees, Defense Base Act Attorneys, Defense Base Act Insurance, Defense Base Act Law and Procedure, Defense Base Act Lawyers, Delay, Deny, Department of Labor, Dropping the DBA Ball, Hope that I die, Injured Contractors, LHWCA Longshore Harbor Workers Compesnation Act, Liberty Mutual, Political Watch, PTSD and TBI | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Who Pays Your Defense Base Act Attorneys Fees: Dante replies to Gary Pitts

Posted by defensebaseactcomp on October 18, 2011

Who Pays Your Defense Base Act Attorneys fees  to see the original thread with comments

Gary B. Pitts said

October 15, 2011 at 5:11 am e

Mr. “Dante,” does not identify himself, but his allegation is in every respect a a lie. I have never represented any client who had an email address address or referred to himself as “Dante.” I have never been paid any money from any Defense Base Act client ever. If they win or settle a DBA case, attorneys representing DBA clients get paid whatever the U.S. Dept. of Labor orders the insurance company to pay them, usually years after beginning work on the case. If there were a lot of money in handling these cases there would be a lot of attorneys handling them. There are very few who are willing to handle them. If Mr. “Dante” will be kind enough to identify himself and his address to me, I will be happy to consider suing him for libel.

Gary Pitts

Dante replies with (forwarded):

Posted in Civilian Contractors, Contractor Casualties and Missing, DBA Attorneys Fees, Defense Base Act, Defense Base Act Attorneys, Defense Base Act Insurance, Defense Base Act Law and Procedure, Defense Base Act Lawyers, Department of Labor, Follow the Money | Tagged: , , | 6 Comments »

War Hazards Act pays Insurance Companies more for expenses than to Claimants for compensation

Posted by defensebaseactcomp on March 9, 2011

“Over the past six years  (does  not include 2010) under the WHCA,
the federal government has paid more in reimbursements to insurers for expenses
$19.7 million
than it has paid in compensation to claimants
$12.1 million”
There is evidence that the current process, in which the federal government identifies WHCA claims after they have been paid as DBA claims and then reimburses insurers for claim and administrative costs, results in the federal government paying significant amounts that do not go directly to claimants.
Over the past six years under the WHCA, the federal government has paid more in reimbursements to insurers for expenses ($19.7 million) than it has paid in compensation
to claimants ($12.1 million).
There is also evidence, including testimony provided by DBA and WHCA claimants at a 2009 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing, that in some cases, claimants with injuries that clearly fall under the statutory requirements of the WHCA must first navigate procedural and other requirements of their contractors’ DBA insurers before their cases are eventually transferred to DOL.
In some cases, DBA insurers controvert claims or oppose specific benefits for claims that are likely to end up at the DOL under the WHCA. Under the current system, insurers have the right and responsibility to investigate all claims and controvert or oppose claims and benefits they feel are not their responsibility or that fall outside of the DBA.
However, this can cause delays for claimants, including claimants with clear WHCA cases that will eventually be paid by the DOL.

Posted in ACE, AIG and CNA, Civilian Contractors, Contractor Casualties and Missing, DBA Attorneys Fees, Defense Base Act Attorneys, Defense Base Act Law and Procedure, Defense Base Act Lawyers, Delay, Deny, Department of Labor, Follow the Money, Hope that I die, Injured Contractors, LHWCA Longshore Harbor Workers Compesnation Act, War Hazards Act | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

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

Posted by defensebaseactcomp on February 24, 2011

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

Posted in Contractor Casualties and Missing, DBA Attorneys Fees, Defense Base Act Law and Procedure, LHWCA Longshore Harbor Workers Compesnation Act | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: