Parker, Kern, Nard & Wenzel Successfully Reduces WCIRB Modification Rating of 189%
Employers concerned about the inner-workings of insurance, experience modification ratings and the role that frequency and severity of injuries play relating to insurance premiums, loss prevention and bottom-line operational expenses often consult our firm.
The firm always recommends that a company concerned with these issues consult an experienced and trusted insurance broker. Often such a trusted professional can avoid the risks, hazards and delays related to litigation.
However, in October of 2005 a construction client consulted our firm upon recommendation of his broker. The client had recently been assessed an experience modification rating of 189% (well over the average of 100%) based on the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau’s (“WCIRB”) decision to exclude some extremely positive loss statistics from its analysis of the client’s risks.
The decision was arbitrary based on the firm’s analysis. Further, the only remedy was a legal appeal.
On November 22, 2005 an Appeal was filed on the client’s behalf. The main crux of the legal argument was that the client’s case warranted consideration of the information excluded. A comprehensive legal brief was filed, citing what appeared to be unequivocal support for the employer’s position.
A decision issued April 7, 2006 by the Chief Administrative Law Judge for the Department of Insurance Administrative Hearing Bureau. The Decision ordered the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau (“WCIRB”) to either re-issue a rating (presumably lower than the 189%) or to issue notice that no additional rating would be issued.
Ultimately the WCIRB made a decision not to re-issue a rating. Such a decision defaults the rating to 100% according to the employer’s broker.
According to the broker’s estimates, the successful Appeal saved the employer a retroactive assessment of premium of approximately $150,000. It should be noted that the employer was initially willing to pay a portion of that assessment prior to the Appeal. However, the successful Appeal resulted in zero additional liability to the employer.
A copy of the final and redacted may be viewed by clicking below as may be correspondence directed to the employer’s elected representatives further detailing the legal issues litigated herein.