The plural of anecdote is not evidence. This sage observation was made by an honorable, veteran Sacramento workers’ comp lobbyist many years ago, and yet the truth of that simple statement rings louder today. Later this month, we will be subjected once again to the moral outrage and cause of concern echoed by injured workers and their advocates, and cautious employers and theirs.
The cause of this latest farce is hearings by the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) on its recent return-to-work data, and an open invitation to engage all stakeholders in a dialogue about how to proceed on the thorny issue of permanent disability benefit adequacy.
Sort of like playing Russian roulette with a semi-automatic, isn’t it?
Applicant attorneys and labor want more, and will point to the anecdotes of injured workers (who will be paraded in for dramatic effect), who have suffered terribly with not enough to show for it in permanent disability benefits.
Business leaders, with insurers cowering in the shadows, and their lobbyists stealthily working the halls, will argue that the return-to-work data show a positive trend toward re-employment and that it is premature to adjust PD until we know just how successful SB 899 reforms have been. In other words, why worry about the amount of PD if more workers are returning to employment?
Anecdotes from both sides provide no basis for moving the debate forward. Injured-worker advocates want complete, lifetime wage replacement, and if a worker does re-enter the workforce, a large PD award is a small price to pay for the momentary loss in income and a lifetime of diminished skills.
Employer advocates argue that disability is insignificant if you get a job at the end of the process. Small employers with fewer than 100 employees obviously have a hard time embracing that concept because they are ill-equipped to keep a job open long enough for the complex workers’ compensation system to reach a conclusion. But if the past four years have proved anything, it is that the system is increasingly engineered with the large self-insured employer in mind.
It will be difficult for the hearing process envisioned by DWC to produce anything of value. That said, Acting Administrative Director Carrie Nevans deserves praise she is likely never to receive for the courage to put so fundamental a question to a public debate by the community.
No one is likely to move past the talking points enough to legitimize the debate – two years of vitriolic presentations before the legislature, DWC, and the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation have proved that.
Solutions are out there, but to find them requires renewed commitment to the basic goals of the workers’ compensation system, not simply continuing a debate over how much money goes into which special interest’s pockets.
Perhaps the new committee chairs will work toward real solutions by bringing together the parties and not the preconceived notions of their respective bodies’ leadership.