STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)


JOHAN ROWE, Applicant

WISCONSIN LIMOUSINE SERVICE, Employer

NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURNACE, Insurer

WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECISION
Claim No. 1998015949


An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Worker's Compensation Division of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and order in that decision as its own.

ORDER

The findings and order of the administrative law judge are affirmed.

Dated and mailed June 15, 1999
rowejo.wsd : 145 : 3 ND § 7.24

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

After receiving the default order the insurer responded, stating that the payment was late due to late reporting to the insurer. The insurer also stated "I further understand that a notice was sent to us in June 98 to question the late payment. You advised that it was sent to National Interstate, c/o NECS, Capitol Blvd., Macedonia OH. As I explained, NECS is a third party administrator that used to handle our claims, however have not done so for nearly two years. They evidently did not forward your mail to us, thus we did not respond to your inquiry." Generally failure to receive a notice questioning a late payment would be a good reason for failing to respond with an explanation. However, in this case, the insurer indicates that it never received the notice. It states that the letter was sent to its former agent. The insurer did not indicate and there is nothing in the file to suggest that the department was notified of this change. The change was in January of 1998, some time before the work injury. Thus, the insurer should have made certain that the department had been notified that NECS was no longer its current third party administrator. In addition, the respondent is generally responsible for the acts of its agents, and in this case, the insurer assumes that its former agent did not forward correspondence to it. See Thomas E. Bennett v. Harmon Contractors WSA Inc., (Commission Decision June 3, 1999). While this particular case may be different because this was a former agent, the file is still devoid of any indication that the insurer gave the department notice of its change of address.


[ Search Decisions ] -  [ WC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]