10770.5 verification form or rejection! (California) (Califo

The filing and enforcement of liens (different states refer to these with different terms) to secure payment for services or goods against a workers' compensation award is complex and filled with special rules - this category is for questions and discussion of this special area of work comp law.

10770.5 verification form or rejection! (California) (Califo

Postby davidd on Thu Jul 02, 2009 2:50 pm

Attention all Lien Claimants - if you do not attach to your lien the verification required by Reg 10770.5 your lien will be rejected and will not be filed. See attached notice that is now coming out of the WCAB. With all the delays inherent in EAMS you can not afford possibly missing a statute of limitations for failure to have your paperwork in order! Beware!!
Attachments
505905441.pdf
facsimile of rejection notice from Santa Rosa Board
(144.7 KiB) Downloaded 1290 times
User avatar
davidd
Site Admin
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: 10770.5 verification form or rejection! (California) (Califo

Postby rider001 on Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:37 pm

So this begs the question. Where does this go in the lien packet? Does it need another seperator sheet? What is the seperator sheet named?
None of this is addressed in the OCR handbooks. Maybe they (the shinning lights at the DWC) should included this in the handbook which they reffer everyone to but havent updated since 10/2008.

If it wasn't for sites/forums like this no one would have a clue.

Are you guys going to add this into your autopopulated lien forms?
rider001
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:20 am

Re: 10770.5 verification form or rejection!

Postby davidd on Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:04 am

Seems to me like your begging several questions rider! :D

1) After itemized bill, before POS.
2) yes
3) 10770.5 Verification
4) yes
User avatar
davidd
Site Admin
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: 10770.5 verification form or rejection! (California) (Califo

Postby jpod on Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:40 pm

Actually he is not begging questions he is asking questions.

This phrase is commonly misused.

From Wikepedia:
"...Begging the question (or petitio principii) is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premises. Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando or circular reasoning. The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 BC, in his book Prior Analytics, where he classified it as a material fallacy.

"The Latin phrase comes from the Greek en archei aiteisthai in Aristole's Prior Analytics II xvi:
"Begging or assuming the point at issue consists (to take the expression in its widest sense) in failing to demonstrate the required proposition. But there are several other ways in which this may happen; for example, if the argument has not taken syllogistic form at all, he may argue from premises which are less known or equally unknown, or he may establish the antecedent by means of its consequents; for demonstration proceeds from what is more certain and is prior. Now begging the question is none of these. [...] If, however, the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue.... [B]egging the question is proving what is not self-evident by means of itself...either because predicates which are identical belong to the same subject, or because the same predicate belongs to subjects which are identical."
Fowler's Deductive Logic (1887) argues that the Latin origin is more properly Petitio Quæsiti which is literally "begging the question"..."

Years ago I was reading a case decision and the phrase was used and I could not make sense of what the Judge was saying so I looked up the word beg in my Websters New Collegiate Dictionary and low and behold I learned how I had misunderstood what it means to beg the question. In fact definition number 3 is to evade, sidestep.
jpod
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:21 pm

Re: 10770.5 verification form or rejection! (California) (Califo

Postby rider001 on Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:09 am

So more questions arise. You stated that there would need to be an additional seperator sheet. According to the DWC website there is no 10770.5 verification seperator sheet. It is not listed in any of the drop down menu's. I am hesitant to include any documentations that might get my lien kicked out. I have not had any liens kicked out for the 10770.5 verification. Any other acceptable seperator sheets?
rider001
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:20 am

Re: 10770.5 verification form or rejection!

Postby davidd on Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 am

I don't know what to tell you at this point. All I know is that 10770.5 is required (the regulation says "shall"). Perhaps you don't use a separator sheet and just attach as another page to your "medical bill".
User avatar
davidd
Site Admin
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: 10770.5 verification form or rejection!

Postby davidd on Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:28 am

I have asked DWC for clarification - seems that the proper designation will be TYPED OR WRITTEN LETTER. But am awaiting confirmation.
User avatar
davidd
Site Admin
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: 10770.5 verification form or rejection!

Postby davidd on Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:32 am

From the horse's mouth:

Yes, they use a separator sheet

They use ADJ - MISC - CORRESPONDENCE-OTHER

Charles Ellison II
WCJ - San Diego
DWC Central Registration Unit (CRU)
EAMS E-Form Trial Administrator
User avatar
davidd
Site Admin
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: 10770.5 verification form or rejection! (California) (Califo

Postby rider001 on Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:37 am

Thanks.
rider001
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:20 am

Re: 10770.5 verification form or rejection! (California) (Califo

Postby rider001 on Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:55 am

I think Calif. needs to get a cut of the increase postal service revenue due to EAMS. Budget problems solved as long as they dont sink more money into this ridiculous system.
rider001
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:20 am

Next

Return to Liens

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron