Bullying is in the News, is it in the Workplace?

The legislative process has begun in Florida, with members of the House and Senate filing bills that they hope will draw consideration next spring. Last year, a pair of bills were sponsored, each titled the "Safe Work Environment Act." The Senate and House versions were not identical, but each would have created a protection for some portion of Florida employees; protection from bullying in the workplace. 

I became curious about these 2013 bills (HB149 and SB308) this week as I read about Jonathan Martin, a member of the Miami Dolphins football team. Mr. Martin has accused another Dolphins player, Richie Incognito of abuse and bullying. The Dolphins have suspended Incognito while an investigation is ongoing into his alleged behavior, and the alleged victim has left the Dolphins, perhaps to escape the alleged behavior. The Dolphins organization says Martin is absent due to illness.

There is much in the news now about whether Martin will sue for the alleged harassment. The prognosticators in the press are discussing whether either Incognito or the Miami Dolphins might be held responsible for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. They note in many press outlets that this might be a difficult case against the Dolphins, particularly if the team has a policy against actions such as those alleged against Incognito. 

The "Safe Work Environment Act" in Florida HB149 is the broader of the two bills. The Senate version only protects workers at state agencies, counties, municipalities, and other governments within the state. The House version would apply to all employers. Both bills are backed by "The Healthy Workplace Campaign." According to their website, 25 states have introduced the bill since 2003, with no state actually passing it. 

The Campaign asserts that workplace bullying includes verbal abuse, "threatening, humiliating or intimidating" behavior and interference with work activities. They claim that "It is a problem that has invaded the life of 37% adult Americans," leading to a host of medical complaints and problems including "hypertension, auto-immune disorders, depression, anxiety [and] PTSD." HB149 finds that the problem is more widespread, stating the figure is "between 37 percent and 59 percent."

HB149 concedes that unless such bullying is shown to be connected to "race, color, sex, national origin or age," the employee is "unlikely to be protected by law against such mistreatment." Finding that current laws are thus inadequate to protect against this bullying, the bill creates liability for the employer. This is called "vicarious" liability, which refers to liability for the actions of someone else. In context, this bill would make the Miami Dolphins liable to someone like Mr. Martin, for the actions of someone like Mr. Incognito, if those alleged actions were proven to have occurred. 

In creating the vicarious liability of the employer, the bill does not relieve the perpetrator (in these allegations Mr. Incognito), the perpetrator is also liable. When not dealing with professionals earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, however, the employer liability is the real effect of this proposed law. 

Bullying has likely been around for the entire history of human existence. When we hear about bullying, we often envision the over-sized kid on the playground that threatens or beats-up the smaller kid. As a kid, I thought this was just something that guys did. Increasingly, however, the news brings us stories that belie that perception. Stories of bullying by girls, of bullying in cyberspace, of a far greater variety that we perhaps expected or understood. 

When I was a kid, the football players were often the ones doing the bullying. Often, they were the "big kids" on the playground. The Martin allegations tell us that it may be (they are allegations at this stage) that the big kids not only bully the smaller ones, but actually bully each other. 

This story will receive much attention in coming weeks and months as the National Football League investigates. As the legislative session begins in the spring, it will be curious to see if any states take legislative action on bullying, in the workplace, schools, or elsewhere. As we wait to see, I wonder whether bullying occurs in other workplaces, like your workplace? 

Annual Report Installments - Attorney Fees

The 2013 Annual Report of the Office of Judges of Compensation Claims will be published soon. The fiscal year of the OJCC and other state agencies runs from July 1st through the following June 30. So fiscal 2013 ended last summer. The fall of the year is always busy with compiling last year's (2012-13) statistics while also planning for the next fiscal year (2014-15) in the budget process, and simultaneously managing the current (2013-14) operations. There is never a dull moment.

There are a multitude of statistics reported in the OJCC Annual Report each year. One that seems to be discussed often is the attorney fee amounts and allocation. Attorneys fees are divided into Claimant's fees and Defense fees. The two are reported to the OJCC differently. Claimant's fees are documented as each motion, stipulation, or determination is made. A pleading is filed, and when the assigned JCC uploads the order related thereto the amount of attorney fees is keyed into the database and captured. 

Defense counsel do not submit their fees to the OJCC in the payment process, though some argue that this should be required. So, each September all of the carriers and self-insured employers log into a web portal and report what they have paid to defense counsel for the past year. Neither is a perfect data collection system.

In  2012-13 the claimant's attorney fee total decreased again. It has decreased in each of the last nine fiscal years. in 2003-04, the aggregate claimant attorney fees were $215,322,360. In 2012-13, that had decreased to $151,889,627. The annual decreases have been of varied percentages. The decrease from 2011-12 to 2012-13 was the lowest percentage decrease of the nine years, at less than one percent from the $152,848,003 in claimant's fees in 2011-12. 

By comparison, defense fees reported in 2003-04 were $231,150,559. The employer/carrier fees over the last nine years have increased overall, although there have been years during that period in which defense fees have decreased.  The trend upward for these E/C fees has been less consistent than the downward progression of claimant's fees. The result after nine years, though, has been notable. Defense fees in 2012-13 were $266,885,472. An aggregate increase over the decade of about $35M.

Obviously, there is a difference in the fee allocation, when comparing total fees in workers' compensation. In 2003-04, the total fees paid in workers' compensation were $446,472,919, with the claimant's share 48% and the employer/carrier share 51.77%. In 2012-13, the aggregate total had decreased to $418,775,099, and the allocation had shifted to 36% claimants and 64% employer/carrier. 

Comparing the 2012-13 fees for claimants and employer/carriers to those reported in 2002-03, a ten-year comparison that is coincident with a decade following the 2003 statutory amendments, illustrates the shift in fees. 

Fiscal Year	Claimant Attorney Fees	Percent Change	Defense Attorney Fees	Percent Change
02-03	$210,660,738		$220,044,685
12-13	$151,889,627	-27.90%	$266,885,472	21.29%

Over the decade since the 2003 amendments, claimant's fees have decreased overall by about 28% while employer/carrier fees have increased by about 21%. 

The explanations for these shifts may come from a variety of directions. There are those who attribute the changes to the statute amendments in 2003, while others argue that at least some of that effect was nullified by the Kaufman decision in 2008. There are those who attribute the changes to decreasing frequency of injury in the marketplace. There are those who attribute the changes to the overall economic decline that we have experienced in the long-running recession and economic uncertainties, and the effects on employment and economic opportunity generally. 

I cannot determine the cause or causes, but merely note these arguments that others have raised in conversations. What I know is that the total attorney's fees reported in workers' compensation cases has decreased in the last ten years overall, and the allocation of those fees has shifted significantly more to the employer/carrier side. 

Annual Report Installment - Petition Filings

Petition filings and new case filings continued to decline last year. Remember, the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims (OJCC)(and the rest of the state) runs on a fiscal year, which begins each July 1 and concludes the following June 30. So, fiscal 2013 ended last summer, and the OJCC has been compiling and preparing statistics and measures since then. It is a long process that includes verification of data that our district staff has entered into the database through the year.

In 2012-13, 58,041 PFB were filed. In 1995-96 the total PFB filing was 56,298. So, after a significant increase in litigation following the 1994 reforms, PFB volumes are approaching the pre-reform volumes. This is an imperfect comparison. Before the 1993 reforms, "claims" were the operative pleading for identifying the dispute, and jurisdiction of this Office over such disputes was effected by filing an "application for hearing" regarding the claim. With this significant change in 1993, it is difficult to compare filing volumes to periods before 1993. 

The Florida Legislature enacted significant amendments to the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law in 1994 and again in 2003. It is interesting that petition filings steadily increased after the 1994 reforms. Just prior to the 2003 reforms, PFB filings peaked at 151,021. The progressive increase in PFB filings between 1994 and 2003 belie the efficacy of the 1994 reforms’ intent to decrease litigation. 

Immediately following the 2003 reforms, the PFB filing volume decreased at a consistent annual rate of approximately fifteen percent (15.21% to 15.9%) over each of the next three years, and then continued to decline with reasonable consistently through fiscal 2013 with the sole exception of a slight (less than 2%) increase in 2008-09. Despite these decreases, PFB filing volume in 2012-13 remains in excess of the volume in 1994 (38,254) when the reform was passed.

The slight increase in 2008-09 is a curiosity. During that year, PFB volumes had trended down on a monthly basis until the rendition of the Supreme Court Murray decision regarding attorney's fees. After that decision, there was an increase in PFB volume for the second half of the fiscal year, leading to this small (less than 2%) overall increase for the year. The trend returned to decreases the next year and since, however.

In 2012-13, the decrease in PFB filing was 5.4%. This is the third consecutive year in which PFB filing has decreased about 5%. If this trend (decrease) and rate (annual 5%) continue, the annual PFB filing rate will return to 1994 levels (38,254) in approximately eight years, about 2021. 

The "new case" volume in 2012-13 was 28,912. This is the lowest new case volume since the OJCC began tracking this statistic in 2001-02.

Will E-service Replace Certified Mail Elsewhere?

The demise of Certified Mail may be coming. Florida has already migrated to electronic mail for transmitting petitions, responses and other pleadings. The savings that result are dramatic. Cost savings are detailed in eJCC Saves Millions. 

Last week the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission announced that they have decided to begin moving away from Certified Mail. This is a discretionary action on their part, as their transmission of documents is directed to be by either Certified Mail, U.S. Mail, or electronic mail. 

The action by the South Carolina Commission may not be an abandonment of paper, but it may be a first step. Their announcement last week does not say that the Commission will not use the U.S. Postal Service for sending notices, forms and orders, just that they will not use Certified. Certified adds about $3.10 to each mailing, in addition to the postage ($.46). 

The Commission's notice also does not address how attorneys serve documents. Experience in Florida supports that much is spent by the state to transmit documents to parties and their attorneys, but as much or more is spent by the parties communicating with each other throughout a case. Consistency is also a benefit to attorneys. If they are to expect email from the Commission, adopting a process by which they use the same medium for communication among themselves brings consistency. 

This step by the South Carolina Commission may signal that it is moving in the direction of an e-mail process. Certainly, much will be saved by not adding that $3.10 to the tab for Certified Mail. Significant savings may be added to this by migrating to email as the primary delivery system and abandoning the United States Post Office entirely. The $.46 price of a First Class stamp will only continue to rise. 

The paradigm has shifted in Florida. The indicators support that change is coming elsewhere. The paperless process is a reality towards which we will all progress. We will not change the fact that change is coming, we may only choose how we react to it.

The Notice of Unavailability

There has been an increase lately in the filing of questionable documents with the Office of Judges of Compensation Claims. One is cover letters. We really do not need a letter with your motion, which explains that the attached document is a motion We can get that from the motion. Please stop filing cover letters. 

Another is the Notice of Unavailability. Invariably, they identify a range of dates upon or between which counsel is otherwise committed to other pursuits and therefore not amenable to scheduling in this particular case. The tenor may not be so consistent, however. Some state something like "the undersigned also requests that no depositions be set during that time frame," while others may be more coercive, like "parties, therefore, shall refrain from filing any motions, notices of hearing, or refrain from setting hearings during this time period."

Is a Notice of Unavailability of any practical use?

The Southern District of Florida has a Magistrate who unequivocally says no. In the SDFLA Blogspot, they note that Magistrate Stephen Brown published a "Notice to Parties" in 2010 explaining:

The parties should note that there is no local rule in our Court providing for the filing of same, and no federal rule supporting same.  While the Court is not precluding anyone from filing same, and as a matter of professionalism and courtesy they should be considered, the parties should understand that these filings have no legal significance.

Is there a 60Q Rule that either describes or suggests this document/notice?

From where did this practice come then? There are those who point to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration generally, and the provisions of Rule 2.550 specifically. I have seen this Rule cited in a few motions for continuance over the years. Some proponents feel that this rule either allows or perhaps requires, the notification of calendar conflicts. Keep in mind that the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims is not a Court. The Rules of Judicial Administration apply to Courts. The RJA does not control the OJCC except where our rules incorporate them, such as the disqualification of judges.

The SDFLA Blogspot has some interesting comments on the topic, and you can decide for yourself whether the Notice has any utility in your workers' compensation practice. I would suggest that there is a utility to such a notice. That is courtesy to your opponent. Everyone has an interest in getting the case moving. Any case will have discovery issues and calendar conflicts. They are virtually inescapable. People on both sides of any litigation, and the witnesses that will be needed, therefore, are busy. That is a simple fact of litigation life. Notifying opposing counsel of calendar conflicts may be a polite and helpful course. Sending such a notice that identifies virtually all the days for the next six months? not so much.

You cannot expect a Judge to sift through the docket, in setting a hearing. Imagine yourself sifting through all of your cases trying to figure out who might be unavailable in a given case. This is not practical. Therefore, do not find yourself surprised if something gets scheduled during a time for which you have filed a notice of unavailability. That notice has no force of law, and you cannot expect that filing it will unequivocally protect your calendar. 

You may, however, find that a notice is helpful to your opponent. Being helpful to her/him, is contextually beneficial to you. First, it is more professional. Second, when you need the Judge's help on a motion for a protective order or a motion for continuance, it may behoove you to be able to point to the Notice of Unavailability (attached to a Motion). 

In other words, it cannot hurt you to file such a notice but do not think it is the be-all and end-all. I recommend avoiding any language as to what parties or the Judge "shall" do or refrain from because of your notice. Grandma always told me that you catch more flies with sugar. I commend that course.  

Is there a better way?

There are so many similarities around the country's workers' compensation systems. All jurisdictions do many things with at least commonalities. This becomes more apparent to me when I get the opportunity to sit around a table with officials from other states. The Southern Association of Worker's Compensation Administrators (SAWCA) and the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions (IAIABC) are exceptional venues for such interaction.

Great ideas have come from these groups, and the IAIABC notably has led the way for consistency among the states in the area of electronic data interchange or "EDI." Computer programmers are creative people. Certainly, they live in a world that is dependent upon logic and they create programs that are themselves functional because they react and respond in a predictable manner to the input with which they are provided. However, if you sit ten of them in a room and describe what you want a program to do, you will get ten, creative, and distinct programs. There is a creativity and art to programming. 

Without the EDI leadership and planning, there would therefore be fifty or more EDI processes out there. In other words, the insurance companies that are able to collect the data regarding claims would be burdened with reporting that data to each of the various jurisdictions in  a vast number of formats. I am sure that even with the EDI leadership, that there are still distinctions that complicate data reporting, but I am as sure that the situation is better than it otherwise would be without the leadership on consistency that grew out of a national or international approach. 

This subject came back to mind as I was reading California's news last week. Their Commission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation, or CHSWC, has approved a proposal for reimbursement of copy services. This is not the first time that the subject has been in the news, David DePaolo blogged about the process about two years ago. He acknowledged that those of us outside California likely did not understand the process, and he conceded that he, and therefore likely other Californians, has little information as to how other jurisdictions address the procurement of medical evidence. 

Mr. DePaolo explains in his blog that there are two approaches for obtaining medical records in California. one for the defense and one for the injured worker (or her/his representatives). Whether because of laws, contracts, and custom, he explains that injured workers' access to records is governed by a "more rigid" process, with record authentication being a significant focus. Rigidity, in my experience, often translates to expense. 

The issue which California faces with a fee schedule is interesting. Not because I see any grand significance in their decision last week to reimburse $103.55 for up to 1,000 page, if timely paid (60 days) or to reimburse $251.20 if that payment is not timely paid. They can argue all they want about whether such payments are appropriate, and whether their system for payment is fair or just. 

I find the issue interesting because it seems to me this ignores a debate that might be more appropriate. In today's world of the portable document format (PDF), the internet, and the electronic transmission of documents, is there not a better way than having a "copy service" procure paper replications of injured worker medical records?

I have seen the vision that The Florida Bar Workers' Compensation Section has for some kind of "data warehouse" system for medical records. They want to build something similar to what the Social Security Administration uses. That vision accepts that the world around us is changing, and that many or perhaps most medical practices have evolved from paper records to digital records. Doctor's offices and hospitals are either in that mode, or moving that direction, for the same reasons that compel the rest of us, digital filing and records save physical space, time, and money. 

The vision of the Section is to build a data warehouse in which injured workers' and carriers could stock documents and data from various medical providers. They see it as a cooperative method by which everyone in our compensation disputes would have increased access to complete and inexpensive information and data. I can see the potentials for savings in both time and money. That does not mean the path to such a process is not complicated by obstacles, they abound. 

I am not sure we will get such a warehouse built. I am convinced that it is a valid process for consideration. If the providers are keeping the records electronically, why should those be converted to paper replications for production to any party? Is it only so that a digital file which could be emailed becomes a revenue generator when it is printed at  $1.00 per page or more? 

Is there a way for the discovery processes to encourage electronic production? Are there pitfalls to such a process? Is the data warehouse methodology the answer, or a path to more questions? Is there benefit in establishing a paradigm or model that more jurisdictions might be able to adopt, as the IAIABC EDI model suggests?

I see California expending significant effort over the last two years, trying to deal with the apparently difficult issue of what is the fair price for copy services. I wonder if that effort might be better channeled into a broader debate about process and how it might be modernized, simplified, and expedited?

It's not over 'til its over

Starship released that lyric years ago, and it came to mind today following the Florida Supreme Court's decision on October 15, 2013 regarding Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg. The Court has listed this case as a "high profile case" on its website. The case number is SC 13-1930. 

The Court's order notes that the designation is based upon the "significant public and media interest in this matter."

The petition for review by the Court, titled Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction, was filed in early October. 

The workers' compensation world will likely watch with interest as this case proceeds. Because of the Court's designation, interested persons should be able to access the Court filings through the Internet.

Dying to me don't sound like all that much fun

John Mellencamp had a hit years ago, called "the authority song." I heard a DJ once say that this was from his "rebelious period," which I thought really did not narrow it down much with Mellencamp. One of his lyrics in this song struck me when I read a recent report on opioids: 

He said , "You don't need no strength, you need to grow up son."

I said, "Growing up leads to growing old and then to dying"

"OO and dying to me don't sound like all that much fun."

Indeed, dying to me also does not sound all that appealing. Certainly, we are all headed that way. Death and taxes, I get it. That does not mean that because it is inevitable it is necessarily inevitable on any given day. Death can still be senseless and needless in specific instances. 

The "Trust for America’s Health is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority." They recently released a report on prescription drug abuse. The death rates and issues with drugs are not "news," but their findings are staggering.

Taken alone, their findings would be staggering. Taken in context, they are even worse. Context? In 2012, the Center for Disease Control reported that "drug overdose" is a more likely cause of death in this country than "automobile accident." That conclusion should have resulted in some serious soul-searching and some serious action across this country. Certainly, there have been some efforts made. There are many officials who take this situation with appropriate concern. However, the deaths continue and more must be done. 

The Report notes the scientific advances of the past twenty years and all that has meant to pharmacology, but notes 

"there has been a striking increase in the misuse and abuse of these medications — where individuals take a drug in a higher quantity, in another manner or for another purpose than prescribed, or take a medication that has been prescribed for another individual." 

In short, these medications are not being used appropriately in some instances, and they are getting into the wrong hands. There is a particular issue with pain medication. The Report notes "Overdose deaths involving prescription painkillers have quadrupled since 1999 and now outnumber those from heroin and cocaine combined." 

About 50 Americans die each day from prescription painkillers in the United States. This country takes heroin and cocaine very seriously. Legislatures and law enforcement have pursued these with zeal. Will the same effort be directed at the pill problem? The report says that the annual cost of prescription drug abuse is about $53.4 Billion. Dividing this by the 314 (approx) million people in this country, this epidemic is costing us about $170.00 each annually. 

There is evidence cited in the Report that supports people are engaged in "abusive purchases of controlled substances." Examining the Medicaid population led the Government Accounting Office to conclude that 65,000 Medicaid patients in five states "acquired the same type of controlled substances from six or more different medical practitioners during fiscal years 2006 and 2007 through “doctor shopping.” Are these people using multiple doctors to obtain the pain medication they need for their medical conditions? 

Vast volumes of pain relief medication is in our marketplace. The volume of prescribed pain medication quadrupled in America between 1999 and 2010. In an odd coincidence, the volume of "fatal poisonings" related to pain medication also quadrupled. An incredible set of statistics. Emergency room visits for medication misuse have increased. Many such visits involve minors. They are often taking medication that belongs to some adult. Is this possible because of the sheer volume of pills out there? The volume of minors who seek treatment for medication poisoning is double the volume who seek such treatment for household product poisoning. 

States are taking action. The Federal Government is focusing attention on this pandemic. Tools such as prescription drug databases are being deployed, allowing physicians and pharmacists to look for patterns in prescriptions. Few jurisdictions require doctors to consult such databases before prescribing medications. When I have asked why they are not required, the response I get is that the physicians do not want to be regulated or restricted, so they are not. Interesting answer. 

Physicians and clinics referred to as "pill mills" are being examined, and some are being closed. Some physicians are being prosecuted for their prescription practices. Just Google "physician pill mill prosecution" to learn about those instances. It is not as though America is sitting on its collective hands, but the deaths and illness continues. Some feel that the death rate has not crested yet, that is that the rate continues to increase. The numbers take some time to compile. Therefore the results of the various efforts are hard to measure in real time. 

The workers' compensation system serves a vast array of people with a great diversity of medical issues and complaints. It is a self-executing system, which involves injured workers, employers, and insurance professionals. There are also physicians, therapists, nurses, case managers, and more. With this community, is there any reason that medication should be an obstacle or danger for injured workers or their families? 

Everyone in this community should be focused to "assure the quick and efficient delivery of disability and medical benefits to an injured worker and to facilitate the worker’s return to gainful reemployment at a reasonable cost to the employer." Fla. Stat. 440.015. This community has to understand the potential for these medications, appreciate the benefits that they represent in the appropriate circumstances, and yet remain cautious of the harm that they might cause if misused or overused or poorly monitored.

While the workers' compensation community cannot change the world, it might change one corner of it. Our marketplace should be conscious of this epidemic and must commit to assuring that workers' compensation patients and those who live with them are not part of the statistics. Dying to me don't sound like all that much fun. 

UPDATE 10.17.13

The National Safety Council declared prescription drug overdose a "national epidemic" this week. Their report cites some similar statistics as those above. They have graded the state's efforts on this problem and concluded that three states (Kentucky, Washington, and Vermont) meet the NSC's four rating standards. Twenty-three states partially meet the standards, and 14 simply do not (Arizona, New Hampshire, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, South Carolina, Wyoming, Hawaii, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and South Dakota). The NSC suggests some actions to make changes in the drug overdose arena. 

Why wasn't it in our email?

There is a periodic inquiry I get from carriers. They have become aware of  a Petition for Benefits (PFB) through the electronic docket in a particular case, but they are concerned that this PFB did not come to them through the electronic service process of e-JCC. They will send an email outlining this situation and asking why/how the e-service process failed. 

In the vast majority of these situations, the e-service system did not fail. There have been a handful of instances in which some computer error did preclude or delay e-service. However, the reason for no email delivery in almost all instances comes down to an election made by the claimant's attorney in the filing process. You see, e-service is an option that is provided to claimant's counsel when the e-PFB is completed in e-JCC. 

The filing of PFB must be through electronic means if the injured worker is represented, Fla. Stat. 440.192; Rule 60Q6.108(1).  Service of the PFB and the response by the carrier "shall" be "by certified mail, or by electronic means approved by the Deputy Chief Judge." The e-service component of the e-JCC system is the electronic means that has been approved. But note that this is disjunctive, "or" and a claimant's attorney may still elect to use the more expensive and more time consuming certified mail process if they wish. 

Certainly, it is valid to ask why one would use Certified mail. The cost of Certified mail is about $3.56 per envelope. Counsel (PFB) and the Carrier (Response) saves that with each e-filing, as the the use of the e-filing process is mandatory, so no Certified mail expense to send to the OJCC. Conversely, counsel (PFB) and the Carrier (Response) can save that $3.56 on each copy served, but "can" is the operative word. E-service, unlike e-filing, is permissive, not mandatory. 

The usual answer, when a Carrier asks us why a particular PFB or other document did not come to their attention as they would have expected (in the email box), the reason is that this particular attorney did not use the e-service option at the end of the e-filing process.  

The advantages of e-service are clear. First, there is no expense, e-service through e-JCC is free. Second, the process of e-service can be accomplished without printing, folding, inserting into an envelope, and walking to whatever "outgoing mail" is usual in your office. The whole e-service process can be accomplished from your desk. Finally, the receipt of e-served documents can be easily and quickly verified in e-JCC, removing doubt of "did they get it" or "when did they get it."

If you would like to save time and money, but are not sure how to use e-service, contact me. I will arrange for someone to show you how to take advantage of this tool, and start saving money and time. 

As always, feel free to contact me with any questions/comments about e-JCC and its benefits. You can reach me by email at david.langham@doah.state.fl.us

e-JCC Saves Millions?

Last year (the OJCC operates on a fiscal year that begins July 1 each year and concludes the next June 30), thousands of documents were filed with the Office of Judges of Compensation Claims. Obviously, some were filed by Claimants and some by Employer/Carriers. The “service” of these motions has traditionally been a job for the U.S. Postal Service or the facsimile machine. In a general sense, each motion is served on counsel for the opposing party. There are those attorneys who will serve a motion on both the attorney and the party, but that is very rare.

The current cost of a First Class stamp is $.46. The postal service rates have been rising. In 1863, the cost for the first one ounce was $.06. That decreased to $.02 by 1885, and remained somewhat consistent until 1932, when the Postal Service increased the cost to $.03, where it remained for almost 20 years. If the historic inflation rate were applied to that $.02 applicable in the early 20th Century, the cost of a postage stamp today would be $.47, so the USPS is beating inflation. Inflation will likely continue, and the cost of postage will likely continue to rise.

Certified mail adds $3.10 to the cost. This service is intended to prove both the mailing and the receipt of documents. For merely $3.56 ($.46 + $3.10) you can mail a one ounce letter and both prove that you mailed it and prove that the addressee received it. This was the procedural tool adopted by the legislature in 1994 for sending both petitions for benefits and the responses required by law.

The cost of postage is a cost of doing business in the litigation world generally, and until a few years ago was as major in the micro-litigation world that is Florida workers’ compensation. What has e-service saved the marketplace?

Last year, there were 58,041 Petitions filed. By law, those are to be served by Certified mail, unless served through our e-portal, the e-JCC service process. At $3.57 each, those  PFB represent an expenditure of $206,626 (58,041 x $3.56). (That was saved in the e-portal serving the carrier). Remember that before e-filing that same amount was required to file by Certified mail with the OJCC, a total of $413,252).

Last year, there were 42,116 Responses to Petitions filed. Each of these would have cost $3.56 each to send to the OJCC by Certified and $3.56 each to send to Claimant or counsel by U.S. Certified mail. E-Filing and e-service saved the market another $299,866 (42,116 x $3.56 x 2).

Last year, parties e-filed 502,448 documents with the OJCC. Of these, 59,432 were petitions for benefits, discussed above. Another 42,116 were Responses to Petitions, also discussed above. This leaves 402,291 (502,448 - 59,432 - 42,116) documents e-filed. Each of those saved the sender at least $.46 in expense of mailing to the Judge’s office. Most or all of those would have been e-served on opposing counsel. Thus another e-filing savings to the marketplace of about $370,108 (402,291 x $.46 x 2).

The combined one-year savings to the workers’ compensation marketplace from the e-filing and e-service tools? $1,083,226 ($413,252 + $299,866 + $370,108). Yes, that is over one million dollars in annual savings to the marketplace from the combination of e-service and e-filing. As postage charges continue to rise in the future, these savings will remain, and the value of both e-JCC processes will become greater.

Also, the system results in savings for the state. There were 112,712 motion and stipulation orders issued last year. Before e-service, the OJCC was sending two (at least) of those orders out by U.S. Mail, one to each party or counsel. That $103,695.04 (112,712 x $.46 x 2) expense was avoided last year through the use of e-service. Likewise, for the 58,041 Petitions filed last year, at least one notice was sent (mediation), in some cases more than one was sent (mediation and trial). The minimum that was saved on notices through e-service was $53.397.72 (58,041 x $.46 x 2).  The e-service process saved the state at least $157,092.76 ($103,695.04 + $53.397.72) last year.

Annual savings to market $1,083,226

Annual savings to OJCC     $157,093

This $1,240,329 in savings is significant, recurs annually, and represents only actual postage savings resulting from e-JCC capabilities. In addition, tons of paper, significant document preparation time, and document processing time were also saved. 

Overall, the e-service and e-filing system has produced financial savings to the marketplace of $4,323,894.34 since it was deployed in 2005 through the end of last fiscal year on June 30, 2013.

These numbers are particularly interesting when I consider that the OJCC has not yet invested one million dollars in the e-JCC system that is generating savings to the marketplace and state in excess of one million dollars annually.

We all periodically hear the sarcastic reference to “your tax dollars at work.” The difference here is that no tax dollars contribute in any way to the operation of the OJCC. One hundred percent of the funding for your OJCC comes from the Administrative Trust Fund, which is funded by assessments on insurance policies for workers’ compensation. The second difference here is that there is no sarcasm, this is your assessment dollars at work, providing efficiency, transparency and savings for the Florida workers’ compensation marketplace.

The value is clear. The value will only become more impressive as postage rates continue their inevitable path upwards.