State of Minnesota

Rehabilitation Review Panel

Thurs., April 5, 2007
443 Lafayette Road N.
St. Paul, Minn.

Voting members present Voting members excused

Dr. Joseph Sweere Dennis Ballinger
Margaret Kasting Steve Hollander
Carl Crimmins
Dawn Soleta
Shirley Muelken
Alissa O’Hara
Michele Cassedy
Joseph Sweere
Frank Lamp
Anthony Ferraro

Nonvoting members present Nonvoting members excused

William Martin

Alternates present Alternates excused

Lucena Slaten Jonathan Hall
Frank Lamp

Department staff members present Others present

Patricia Todd Natalie Hoefner
John O’Loughlin Stephanie Igtanloc
Debbie Caswell Kathleen Brady
Jana Williams
Phil Moosbrugger
Patricia Todd
Jeanne Gehrman
Dee Torgerson
Kate Berger

Call to order
Dr. Joseph Sweere called the meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. Department staff members and guests
were introduced. The panel has a new alternate member, Lucena Slaten, representing labor.
Lucena’s background is in safety and health in the airline industry; her primary focus was
ergonomics. She’s currently involved in safety at the National Safety Council and attends its
caucuses twice a year. Panel members were then introduced.

Approval of Jan. 4, 2007 minutes

Meg Kasting made a motion to approve the Jan. 4, 2007, minutes and Carl Crimmins seconded.
The minutes were unanimously approved.
Approval of agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.

Assistant commissioner's update

Assistant Commissioner Patricia Todd gave the following update.
– The Workers’ Compensation Advisory Council bill is still in process. At this point, there
have been no hearings. Some of the changes that would come from this bill are as follows:
– increase the maximum comp rate from $750 to $850 a week;
– increase the maximum duration of TTD from 104 weeks to 130 weeks;
– extend the time period for filing a retraining plan from 156 weeks to 208 weeks;
– limit the maximum payment for surgical implants in the 11-county metropolitan area
to a cost-plus approach;
– pay all inpatient and outpatient services that are not covered by the fee schedule, for
hospitals in the 11-county metropolitan area at the aggregate private-sector payment
to charge ratio, plus a premium for workers’ compensation;
– allow for an employee identification number, which is part of the data-driven work
comp task-force project; and
– make a section in the statute obsolete, no longer relevant, this has to do with a
medical group that used to evaluate and approve work comp diseases.

Carl asked why the maximum payment is limited only to the 11-county metropolitan area and is
not statewide. Patricia indicated that in the 11-county area there are multiple hospitals that are
available, whereas in greater Minnesota the density of that population doesn’t allow for much
competition. There was also a study done by State Fund Mutual that clearly indicated that in the
metro area for the same type of services, the variation from one hospital to another hospital could
be as much as 50 percent.

– We just had another external stakeholder meeting on the data-driven work comp system. A
concept report is being drafted and should be completed by the end of May. The governor’s
budget allows for additional dollars for this project.
– On the pay-for-performance project, there have been meetings for health care providers and
insurers to review this concept. A couple of major items that are being looked into include
financial or administrative incentives, quality, performance goals, measurements and
certifications.

104/156-week time limit for requestion retraining – Hallam v. Potlatch Corp.

John O’Loughlin reported about Hallam v. Potlatch, a decision of the Workers’ Compensation
Court of Appeals, issued Aug. 18, 2006. The issue in the case was whether the employee’s
request for retraining was timely under Minnesota Statutes §176.102, subd. 11 (c). The insurer
asserted retraining should be denied because the employee did not file a request for retraining
that met the requirements of Minnesota Rules 5220.0852 before 104 weeks of temporary total or
temporary partial compensation had been paid. The 104-week time limit to file a request for
retraining was in effect on the employee’s date of injury. The statute was amended in 2000 to
require requests for retraining to be filed before 156 weeks of any combination of temporary
total and temporary partial compensation has been paid. The employee’s attorney filed a notice
of representation, a request for dispute certification and two rehabilitation requests with the
department seeking exploration of retraining within the 104 weeks. There were two
administrative conferences by the department and an order was issued approving the employee’s
request for exploration of retraining. Under these circumstanced, the court found the retraining
claim was not barred by Minnesota Statutes §176.102, subd. 11 (c).

Rehabilitation forms
At the most recent meeting, the panel was asked what issues it would like to address within the
next year. Members mentioned rehabilitation forms. As such, the following forms were
discussed:
– Disability Status Report;
– Rehabilitation Rights and Responsibility of the Injured Worker;
– Rehabilitation Consultation Report;
– R-2 Rehabilitation Plan;
– R-3 Rehabilitation Plan Amendment;
– Plan Progress Report;
– On-the-job Training Plan;
– Retraining Plan;
– R-8 Notice of Rehabilitation Plan Closure;
– Rehabilitation Request; and
– Rehabilitation Response.

When discussing the Disability Status Report form, Meg asked how often rehabilitation
consultation waivers are granted. John deferred to Jeanne Gehrman, who agreed to
provide an accurate count at the next panel meeting.

Sue Mauren asked how often requests go to mediation as a result of parties checking the box that
indicates willingness to mediate the disputed issues. John indicated if parties desire mediation
services, they usually don’t go through this process. They usually call the department, indicating
they want mediation. Meg asked what the timeline is from the filing of a Rehabilitation Request
form until an administrative conference is scheduled. Patricia said that we will report on it at the
next meeting, as well as how quickly the Decision and Order is served and filed. John indicated
that within the past eight months, Benefit Management Resolution (BMR) has hired six new
dispute prevention and resolution specialists to help increase handling of administrative
conferences and mediation sessions. All of the new hires are attorneys. There are now 12 full-
time specialists handling administrative conferences, mediations and phones. Specialists try to
mediate informally by getting issues resolved as soon as possible. Patricia indicated an effort is
being made to increase and market DLI's mediation services. A brochure has been published and
the department published benefits of mediation in COMPACT. A survey was recently completed
that was conducted during all of our conferences and mediations to receive input regarding
satisfaction with our processes.

Carl noticed some wording on the forms is not consistent, such as average weekly wage, average
wage and pre-injury wage. Which one should it be? He also indicated some forms include a
disclaimer and some don’t. Patricia said these are just some of the reasons the forms are being
looked at. She asked the panel to identify forms it they would like to discuss at the next meeting.
It was decided that the following forms will be discussed:
– R-2 Rehabilitation Plan;
– R-3 Rehabilitation Plan Amendment;
– R-8 Notice of Rehabilitation Plan Closure; and
– Rehabilitation Consultation Report.

Joseph asked that when there is a stipulated settlement, do the QRCs remain a party to that
process and how are they made aware of when the case is settled. John indicated the QRC is a
party to the stipulation for settlement if his/her bills are being addressed as part of that process.
They are not a party otherwise. The employee, attorney or insurer should contact the QRC when
the case is settled. Alissa O'Hara mentioned the QRCs are sometimes kept out of the loop and
may not be aware the case has settled for some period of time. Joseph also asked at what point
the department would go electronic. Patricia indicated electronic data interchange will be
addressed as a part of its data-driven workers’ compensation project. We have to determine
whether we can receive some of the information electronically via e-mail and other forums.
There are a lot of issues that need to be considered, such as Social Security number and security.

Adjournment
Shirley Muelken made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Lucena seconded the motion. The
meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.