“Let’s see,” I said to the employer’s representative. “After deducting PDAs, the MSA, and attorney fees from this offer, the injured worker will end up owing you money.”
It happens more often than you might imagine. Usually it’s because the defense has forgotten the attorney’s fee. Then they wonder why the offer was rejected. Unless parties are in mediation, negotiation often stops.
Why You Need Adequacy
A settlement must be adequate. A recent case on the issue of settlement adequacy, Alvarenga v. Scope Industries, caught some workers compensation professionals off-guard. The court reversed approval of the settlement because after allowing for attorney fees it was inadequate to fund the MSA. Whether CMS approval of the MSA was sought was irrelevant.
California regulations mandate adequacy:
“The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board shall inquire into the adequacy of all compromise and release agreements and stipulations with request for award, and may set the matter for hearing to take evidence when necessary to determine whether the agreement should be approved or disapproved, or issue findings and awards.”
8 CCR § 10882 Action on Settlement Agreement
Itemized offers and demands help settle cases. When the PDAs, MSA and attorney fees are itemized in an offer, everyone can see how funds will be disbursed.California law favors written settlement offers. Attorneys must show clients written settlement offers and demands, California Rule of Professional Conduct For Attorneys 3-510, but need only convey oral offers if the attorney thinks the offer is “significant.” Written offers let the recipient easily and accurately convey the information to the ultimate decision-maker.Preparing an offer or demand requires review of indemnity issues, Medicare-eligible expenses, and non-Medicare-eligible expenses. Calculating the settlement parts separately can be an eye-opening exercise. Itemizing can show why the offer or demand is reasonable.