Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

Carrier incurs penalty for overly frugal assessment of caregiver services

In Montana, a workers' compensation judge can increase the amount of a claimant's compensation benefits by 20 percent when the carrier unreasonably delays or refuses to make payments.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Case name: Quick v. Montana State Fund, No. DA 08-0285 (Mont. 05/13/09).

Ruling: The Montana Supreme Court upheld the Workers' Compensation Commission's imposition of a 20 percent penalty fee on the carrier.

What it means: In Montana, a workers' compensation judge can increase the amount of a claimant's compensation benefits by 20 percent when the carrier unreasonably delays or refuses to make payments.

Summary: An employee suffered a brain injury in a work-related motor vehicle accident. His injuries eventually forced him to need full-time domiciliary care, which his wife provided. The carrier accepted the claim and the request for domiciliary care, but only agreed to pay his wife, a registered nurse, $7.50 per hour for her services. Multiple doctors testified that the employee a level of care that only an RN could provide, and two RNs testified that the salary for a home health nurse ranged from $25 to $65 per hour. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the workers' compensation judge's determination that the wife should get a reduced amount of $20, due to her "greater level of discretion and freedom" than a privately retained nurse.

The court found the carrier acted unreasonably in questioning the monetary value of the wife's services. It pointed out that, as far back as 1987 and 1989, the going rate for domiciliary care provided by an employee's spouse, not even a registered nurse, was between $7 and $7.50 per hour. Noting the rise in medical care costs since the 1980s, the court held the carrier unreasonably determined the rate of pay, and therefore the 20 percent penalty increase was appropriately assessed.

July 2, 2009

Copyright 2009© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.