Title: President, California Applicants' Attorneys Association
Resume: Dombchik began advocating for the rights of the injured early in his career. He started working for the firm, then joined full-time after graduation and was named partner in 2005.
Schools: Pennsylvania State University, Southwestern University School of Law
Awards: Dombchik received the Exceptional Achievement Award in Workers' Compensation Law & Practice from his alma mater. For four years, Law & Politics magazine has named Dombchik a "Rising Star" among Southern California lawyers.
An applicant attorney with Gordon, Edelstein, Krepack, Grant, Felton & Goldstein, Dombchik became one of the youngest attorneys ever to lead the California Applicants’ Attorneys Association when he was installed as president of the association in 2009. Dombchik is also active within the association and the industry on issues related to the American Medical Association Guidelines and the development of regulations for the workers' comp system. Dombchik graduated from Pennsylvania State University with a degree in speech communication and completed his legal training at Southwestern University School of Law.
What are the top three issues in California workers’ comp today?
The first is access for injured workers to appropriate medical treatment. The second is accurate and fair permanent disability ratings for injured workers. The third is proper staffing of the Workers’ Comp Appeals Board local district offices to ensure that cases are heard as expeditiously as possible.
Are we headed for a hard market, and if so, when will it come? How long should we expect it to last? What are the repercussions?
No, I think the data show that insurers are taking large profits from the premium dollar, post-SB 899.
It’s no longer a question of if but when we enter a hard market, so what is in the future of State Compensation Insurance Fund? Will its market share climb back to historic levels? Do you think that further reforms are needed for governance of State Fund? For example, does it make sense to have Senate confirmation for board members?
I believe State Fund’s market share has decreased, and I think it’s important that they do not return to the level earlier in the decade, which was greater than 50%.
Are medical provider networks a help or a hindrance? How should they be improved?
Utilization review should not be required for medical provider network physicians. No two medical provider networks are the same. The issue isn’t so much whether the medical provider network will help or hinder, it’s whether the doctor can get authority to provide the care they need. It’s a medical treatment issue, not a medical provider issue.
How should utilization review be improved?
One suggestion is that it should be [limited to] California-licensed physician in the state of California. Second, there should be some accountability for the entity responsible for forwarding medical treatment requests to physicians. Often physicians don’t get the complete file and view requests without all the information, which is a waste of time and money, and results in delays in medical treatment.
What needs to be done to improve return-to-work?
I think we need to improve return-to-work benefits, including supplemental job displacement vouchers. Injured workers have problems getting access to these when they could most use them. Accessing that benefit is important. Although vocational rehabilitation programs have been abolished recently, I would support [their] re-implementation.
What do you see, other than medical, as the next big cost driver?
I don’t know that I have an answer. A big cost driver right now is wasted utilization review and the cost associated with litigating denied medical treatment requests.
Is it realistic to deal for more cost-cutting reforms in exchange for increasing PD benefits?
No, I believe that benefits can be increased without the need for further cost-cutting measures. The intent of the Legislature in SB 899 was not to severely reduce benefits, yet that has occurred. The unintended consequence of a reduction of permanent disability, by some estimates 50% to 70%, needs to be addressed. That’s not to say that cost-cutting in general won’t be required in the system, but tying it to permanent disability benefits is inappropriate.
Where do you see applicant attorneys focusing litigation in the future?
Enforcing the statutory mandate that the Administration is required to adjust the permanent disability schedule. I say that because litigation may be required to get the state to recognize and comply with the statute [which it so far has failed to do].
Now that Obama’s health care bill is law, is there any correlation with workers’ comp? The language changed a bit. Is there a greater connection? Is there anything that has emerged in the law that would change their answer from last time?
It’s too early to tell.
What does the future hold now that Almaraz/Guzman & Ogilvie have been reconsidered? Will there be a benefits increase?
In some cases, injured workers will get more-accurate permanent ratings that they otherwise would not have received. I don’t see these cases tied to a benefit increase. These cases will be used in certain limited circumstances. I believe that the Division of Workers’ Comp has produced data over the past five years that require a benefit increase.
Where does the greatest liability lie in Medicare Set-Asides?
The [greatest liability is the] delay in both parties being able to resolve a case. Delays caused by Medicare set-asides really don’t benefit anyone.