Connecticut Business and Industry Association - Agents of Deception

Connecticut Business and Industry Association - Agents of Deception

I continue to be totally frustrated with the approach that the Connecticut Business and Industry Association ("CBIA") has taken in responding to legitimate inquiries concerning the information that it is presenting to the legislature on issues relating to people who get hurt. On January 26 (see this Blog) I wrote to the CBIA requesting some very basic information that was calculated to assess the legitimacy of the position that CBIA has been taking in opposition to very basic and sensible reforms of the workers' compensation system. You may know that in 1993, the legislature capitulated to pressure from the CBIA and Chambers of Commerce that complained the workers' compensation costs were too high and it was creating an anti-competitive environment int he state. Well the pendulum has swung. Insurance companies are making oodles of money and not passing the savings on to customers; the large and wealthy self-insured employers are pocketing the excess; and insured workers are suffering the indignity of being unable to make ends meet.

Here are the questions that I posed to the CBIA:

1. The actuarial data that demonstrates the cost to each class of employer should these measures be adopted including measures that would expand scarring and discretionary awards under 31-308(a)
2. Any analysis that justifies or excuses the routine delay in the payment of workers' compensation benefits.
3. The harm that would be occasioned to employers who were required to advise their employees of their potential entitlement to workers' compensation benefits following injury.
4. The harm that would be occasioned to employers which were required to help their injured employees complete the paperwork necessary to file a workers' compensation claim.

When CBIA finally responded to my inquiry, this is what I received:


CBIA
Connecticut Business& Industry Association

February 13, 2007

Mr. Stewart M. Casper
Casper & de Toledo LLC
1458 Bedford Street
Stamford, CT 06905

Dear Mr. Casper:

I am responding to inquiries you made regarding the position of the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, Inc. (CBIA) on Connecticut's workers compensation system.

You have misinterpreted CBIA's position on the state's workers compensation system. CBIA strongly supports maintaining Connecticut's workers compensation reforms and opposes efforts to increase workers compensation costs. CBIA's position is supported by our membership, approved by our Board of Directors and embodied in testimony that we have presented before the General Assembly's Labor and Public Employees Committee.

We are not unmindful of the impact of the workers compensation system on injured employees. That is why we have worked with the commission for years on streamlining the process and getting workers to work sooner.

It is also important to recognize that Connecticut's workers compensation system and its reforms affect both fully‑insured and self‑insured companies in the state.

We understand that you are an active plaintiff's attorney and that your opinion on this subject differs from CBIA's as well as the vast majority of our membership. However, our membership and our Board have clearly communicated to us to urge lawmakers to maintain the workers compensation reforms and to refrain from doing anything that will increase workers compensation costs.

Sincerely,

Eric J. George

My email response to Mr. George follows:

2/16/07

Mr. George: No sooner than I sent my email to you today I received your letter of February 13. Your letter, however, fails to specify the manner in which I have misrepresented CBIA's position concerning "the state's workers' compensation system." Perhaps I would understand better if you would provide some specifics.

Also, your letter fails to address any of the questions that I posed on January 26. Instead, you have merely suggested that it is the policy of CBIA to resist any effort to reform the system no matter the policy involved if the reform would cost employer's anything.

Perhaps what is most disturbing about your response is your emphasis that CBIA's policies affect "both fully-insured and self-insured companies in the state." I'm not certain why that is significant in your mind. Perhaps it is because the fully insured employers are being gouged by insurers and the self-insured companies, which tend to be the larger and wealthier employers, are simply taking advantage of injured workers.

Finally, the fact that I am an active Plaintiff's attorney and my views differ from CBIA's policy, does not change the fact that injured employees are suffering in this state. As an employer and member of CBIA, I would be content to pay more for a fairer system. My position on income taxes is likewise the same. I am prepared to pay more for better schools, better healthcare and a better environment. And I firmly believe that sound public policy ought to be debated upon facts. Your response to my inquiry failed to provide any factual support for CBIA's position. In this regard, you have exposed CBIA's policy makers for the charlatans they are.