Category Archives: Uncategorized

4th Circuit Issues Devastating Opinion Regarding “Assault Rifles”

Today the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting En Banc issued a devastating opinion regarding “assault rifles” in Kolbe v. Hogan. The Fourth Circuit covers Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina.

4thcircuit

Kolbe challenged Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (“FSA”), which bans AR-15s and other military-style rifles and shotguns as well as detachable large capacity magazines, by contesting the constitutionality of the law under the Second Amendment, as well as bringing a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection claim. (Quick note to the readers, the use of the terms “assault rifles”, “military-style rifles and shotguns” and “large capacity magazines” are being used in reference to the Court opinion and not the author’s belief that these firearms and magazines should be referred to as such).

At the District Court level, the judge ruled that the FSA was constitutional. While analyzing the Second Amendment claims, the Court expressed doubt that “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines” were protected by the Second Amendment. As a result the Court employed an intermediate scrutiny analysis.

As the case trickled up the Court system, the 4th Circuit issued an opinion from a divided three judge panel which found “that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are indeed protected by the Second Amendment, and that the FSA substantially burdens the core Second Amendment right to use arms for self-defense in the home.” More importantly, the Court became the first Court in the country to require a strict scrutiny analysis in regard to the Second Amendment claims.

Unfortunately, the Court sitting En Banc had a different idea. It was happy to affirm the District Court’s opinion, “in a large part adopting the Opinion’s cogent reasoning as to why the FSA contravenes neither the Second Amendment nor the Fourteenth.” However, the Court did make an explicit statement that the District Court did not. The Court stated

[w]e conclude — contrary to the now-vacated decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach…Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.

The Court explicitly adopted that intermediate scrutiny was the correct analysis to utilize. “[I]ntermediate scrutiny is the appropriate standard because the FSA does not severely burden the core protection of the Second Amendment, i.e., the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms for self-defense in the home.”

In its analysis the Court found that “[t]he FSA bans only certain military-style weapons and detachable magazines, leaving citizens free to protect themselves with a plethora of other firearms and ammunition. Those include magazines holding ten or fewer rounds, nonautomatic and some semiautomatic long guns, and — most importantly — handguns.”

Applying the intermediate scrutiny standard the Court found “the FSA survives such review because its prohibitions against assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are — as they must be — ‘reasonably adapted to a substantial governmental interest.’” The Court stated that “Maryland’s interest in the protection of its citizenry and the public safety is not only substantial, but compelling.”

Unfortunately, this means that yet another Court has refused to require a strict scrutiny analysis to a fundamental constitutional right. Perhaps the most troubling aspect is the Fourth Circuit believes that firearms like the AR-15 are not protected by the Second Amendment, opening the door for more restrictive legislation to be put in place and making it more difficult to challenge.

 

Did you find this blog article interesting or useful? Be sure to pass it along to a friend who may benefit from the information by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook by clicking the “Like” button on the right.

screen-shot-2016-12-14-at-8-54-53-pm

Don’t forget, ballots for the NRA Board of Directors have been arriving. If you have not already voted, please consider voting for me. Voting members are those that are Life members or those who have been annual members for the past 5 consecutive years. If you have not yet received a ballot and you are a qualified member, you may contact membership services to acquire one.

ak4nra_logo-01small

 

 

36 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Delaware Backpedals on Concealed Carry Changes

ag-seal-big

The Delaware Attorney General’s Office has changed the information which appears on its website in relation to the reciprocity agreements of concealed carry permits with other states. Earlier this week I wrote that Delaware had changed its reciprocity agreements. At the time, the verbiage on the website was very clear (that being all non-resident permits from the states Delaware had agreements with would not be recognized after September 23, 2017).

As a number of readers and commenters on Facebook seemed to be confused as to the applicability of the language, I called the Attorney General’s Office to seek clarification. I was transferred to the individual who would have knowledge of the matter only to receive his voicemail. I followed up the following day only to be transferred back into voicemail. To date, I have not received a call back (which at this point is rather moot). Some time after the original blog article was posted, the website was updated to remove the language that was causing disdain amongst the firearms community.

The new language states that “[t]he list of states with reciprocal privileges is published on January 15 each year. Any additional reciprocal states would be posted on January 15 and be effective immediately. The removal of reciprocal privileges from any state would be posted by January 15 to take effect one year later.”

It goes on to state that the AG’s Office is currently reviewing the approval procedures for individuals in other states to acquire concealed carry permits to see if they meet the requirements of the Delaware Code to be recognized in Delaware. If the AG’s Office determines that they do not meet the requirements, notice will be published January 15, 2018 and the official change in recognition will occur the following year (January 15, 2019).

The AG’s Office does issue an apology for the confusion of the language that was posted from February 10-15th.

As always, we strive to give our readers the best and correct information. If you read the original article and shared it via Facebook, email, or some other method, I hope that you will forward along the updated information so that those around you can be in the know.

 

Do you have a non-resident concealed carry permit and find this article helpful? Be sure to pass it along to a friend who may benefit from the information by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook by clicking the “Like” button on the right.

screen-shot-2016-12-14-at-8-54-53-pm

Don’t forget, ballots for the NRA Board of Directors have been arriving. If you have not already voted, please consider voting for me. Voting members are those that are Life members or those who have been annual members for the past 5 consecutive years. If you have not yet received a ballot and you are a qualified member, you may contact membership services to acquire one.

ak4nra_logo-01small

11 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Delaware Changes Concealed Weapons Agreements (Not for the Better)

DE_StateIcon.png

UPDATE (2/17/17 8:42 AM): New Blog with current information related to the change in position from the Attorney General’s Office can be found here.

UPDATE (2/15/17 8:40 PM): After publication of the below article, it appears the language on the Delaware Attorney General’s page was changed to remove the information indicating that Delaware would no longer recognize non-resident permits. I already have a call in to the Attorney General’s Office requesting clarification and will post an update once I receive a response.

 

Delaware’s Attorney General recently updated their website to reflect the changes in their Reciprocity Agreements.

Previously, the website had listed reciprocity agreements with:

ALASKA

ARIZONA

ARKANSAS

COLORADO

FLORIDA

IDAHO
(Enhanced Permits Only)

KENTUCKY

MAINE

MICHIGAN

MISSOURI

NEW MEXICO

NORTH CAROLINA

NORTH DAKOTA

OHIO

OKLAHOMA

SOUTH DAKOTA
(Enhanced Permits Only)

TENNESSEE

TEXAS

UTAH

VIRGINIA
(Reciprocity with VA will be revoked as of 3/1/2016)

WEST VIRGINIA

Now, the website reflects the following changes:

ALASKA

ARIZONA

ARKANSAS

COLORADO

FLORIDA

IDAHO
(Enhanced Permits Only)

KENTUCKY

MAINE

MICHIGAN

MISSOURI

NEW MEXICO

NORTH CAROLINA

NORTH DAKOTA
(Class 1 permits only)

OHIO

OKLAHOMA

SOUTH DAKOTA
(Enhanced Permits Only)

TENNESSEE

TEXAS

UTAH

WEST VIRGINIA

Further, Delaware will no longer recognize non-resident permits issued by any state beginning on September 23, 2017.

As a number of Pennsylvanians have acquired either Florida or Utah non-resident permits in order to be able to carry a firearm in Delaware, it is important they be aware of this impending change as to not unlawfully carry a firearm in Delaware after the change becomes effective. While it is possible for the Attorney General of Pennsylvania (or the state in which you reside) to enter into negotiations with Delaware to secure a reciprocity agreement, it is likely that unless the state has a training requirement to obtain a license, Delaware will not enter into an agreement.

Perhaps the solution to the problem lies in the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill that is currently in committee in the House. I’d encourage you to contact your Representatives and ask them to support the bill.

Do you have a non-resident concealed carry permit and find this article helpful? Be sure to pass it along to a friend who may benefit from the information by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook by clicking the “Like” button on the right.

 

screen-shot-2016-12-14-at-8-54-53-pm

Don’t forget, ballots for the NRA Board of Directors have been arriving. If you have not already voted, please consider voting for me. Voting members are those that are Life members or those who have been annual members for the past 5 consecutive years. If you have not yet received a ballot and you are a qualified member, you may contact membership services to acquire one.

ak4nra_logo-01small

12 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Second Seminar: What Happens After You Use Your Firearm In PA

Due to overwhelming demand, as the first seminar on January 7, 2017, from 10-11:30 sold out, we have added a second, identical, seminar from 12-1:30.

For those unaware of the seminar, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince and Attorney Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG), a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., in conjunction with former JAG E. Allen Chandler of Firearms Legal Protection and King Shooters Supply, will provide an hour and a half seminar on what happens after you use your firearm in Pennsylvania. For only $10, you will be provided information on the legal consequences of a violent encounter and how to avoid common mistakes that can cost you money, and even your freedom, if you should become involved in a self-defense situation.

All attendees must per-register, and if there is extensive demand, we may schedule another seminar later in the day. To register, simply visit King Shooter Supply’s website.

Brought to you by your PA Firearms Lawyer® and your PA Gun Attorney® and home of the Armor Piercing Arguments®.

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Social Security Administration Publishes Final Rule Relating to NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007

logo-fb-share

It has been well reported that the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) had been passing along information of individuals that it deemed unable to handle their financial affairs to NICS for the purposes of preventing them from purchasing a firearm due to being “adjudicated as a mental defective.”

In May of this year, the SSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It received over 91,000 comments relating to the proposed rule. Of those, 86,860 were identical letters submitted by various individuals of a single advocacy group, opposing the proposed rule.

On December 19, 2016, the SSA published a Final Rule on the Federal Register pertaining to its regulations. While the regulations take effect on January 18, 2017 compliance is not required until December 19, 2017.

Public Comments

There were a number of comments on various issues, which I will recap a few points quickly below before moving on to explain the final rule and its impact.

2ndAmendment.jpg

Second Amendment and Equal Protection

A number of individuals commented that “these rules would violate the affected individuals’ rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and would also violate their equal protection rights under the Constitution. Most of these comments were provided in largely identical letters, and they asserted that our rules would take firearms away from elderly recipients of Social Security retirement benefits.”

SSA responds stating that “[t]he criteria we will use under these rules do not focus on one age group, such as the elderly or recipients of Social Security retirement benefits, nor do they categorize and treat individuals who are similarly situated differently.” Further, “[w]e do not intend under these rules to report to the NICS any individual for whom we appoint a representative payee based solely on the individual’s application for and receipt of Social Security retirement benefits.”

With regard to the Second Amendment claim, the SSA cites to District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) for the proposition that “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” and that “nothing in [the Court’s] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” Heller at 626.

Unfortunately, the Heller decision gives no guidance as to what constitutes mentally ill. Is an individual who was diagnosed with OCD “mentally ill”? Where does one draw the line exactly?

Due Process

Individuals commented that the due process rights of the beneficiaries would be violated because the beneficiaries would not be able to appeal the decision prior to the inclusion of their information being reported to NICS, raised concerns about adequate notice being given to the beneficiary who might be reported and argued the costs of pursuing relief should an individual be reported to NICS would be onerous.

SSA responded stating that “[a]ffected individuals will have the opportunity to apply for relief from the Federal firearms prohibitions imposed by 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) at any time after our adjudication has become final…we will provide individuals with advance notice at the commencement of the adjudication that we may report their information to NICS if we find they meet the criteria for reporting when the adjudication is final.”

SSA goes on to state that they “will provide oral and written notice to the beneficiary at the commencement of the adjudication, which we define as after we have determined that he or she meets the medical requirements for disability based on a finding that his or her impairment(s) meets or medically equals the requirements of the mental disorders listings, but before we find that he or she requires a representative payee.”

Notice is extremely important and a lot of times never given to individuals. SSA incorporating both oral and written notice to an individual is pleasantly surprising, given a the litany of issues I see where an individual is never told that a finding may result in their Second Amendment rights being taken from them.

Lastly, regarding the cost of pursuing relief, SSA dismissed the concerns by stating they will not impose a fee in connection with a request for relief and that it believes the cost to obtain the evidence it would require for such a request for relief as “reasonable”.

Part of the criteria of the new rule is that the individual appealing the decision will provide the SSA medical evidence in the form of a statement of the individual’s current mental health status as well as their mental health during the preceding five years from the applicant’s primary mental health provider. Such evaluations are typically performed by a psychologist and cost anywhere between $1,500 to $2,000 on average.

Final Rule

In order for an individual to be reported to NICS, they have to meet the five (5) criteria spelled out in Section 421.110.

Adjudicated as a mental defective, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4), as amended, means a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: Is a danger to himself or others; or lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

An individual will have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” if during SSA’s claim development and adjudication process, or when SSA takes certain post-entitlement or post-eligibility actions, SSA will identify any individual who:

  1. Has filed a claim based on disability;
  2. Has been determined to be disabled based on a finding that the individual’s impairment(s) meets or medically equals the requirements of one of the Mental Disorders Listing of Impairments (section 12.00 of appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of this chapter) under the rules in part 404, subpart P, of this chapter, or under the rules in part 416, subpart I, of this chapter;
  3. Has a primary diagnosis code in our records based on a mental impairment;

    Primary diagnosis code means the code we use to identify an individual’s primary medical diagnosis in our records. The primary diagnosis refers to the basic condition that renders an individual disabled under the rules in part 404, subpart P, of this chapter, or under the rules in part 416, subpart I, of this chapter.

  4. Has attained age 18, but has not attained full retirement age; and
  5. Requires that his or her benefit payments be made through a representative payee because we have determined, under the rules in part 404, subpart U, of this chapter, or the rules in part 416, subpart F, of this chapter, that he or she is mentally incapable of managing benefit payments.

These criteria will be applied to capability findings that are made in connection with initial claims on or after December 19, 2017 and capability findings that are made in connection with continuing disability reviews (including age-18 disability redeterminations under § 416.987) on or after December 19, 2017. The latter provision will only apply in instances with respect to capability findings in which SSA appoints a representative payee for an individual in connection with a continuing disability review.

If the individual does not meet all five of the aforementioned requirements, then they will not be reported to NICS.

The regulations provide that if SSA determines the person is “mental defective” they will provide both oral and written notice to the affected individual that:

(a) A finding that he or she meets the criteria in § 421.110(b)(1) through (5), when final, will prohibit the individual from purchasing, possessing, receiving, shipping, or transporting firearms and ammunition, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(4) and (g)(4);

(b) Any person who knowingly violates the prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(4) or (g)(4) may be imprisoned for up to 10 years or fined up to $250,000, or both, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2); and

(c) Relief from the Federal firearms prohibitions imposed by 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(4) and (g)(4) by virtue of our adjudication is available under the NIAA.

If an individual is reported, they may request relief from SSA as to the determination. Per Section 421.150 an application for relief must be in writing and include the information required by § 421.151. It may also include any other supporting data that the SSA or the applicant deems appropriate. When an individual requests relief under this section, SSA will also obtain a criminal history report on the individual before deciding whether to grant the request for relief.

Section 421.151 requires the applicant provide:

  1. A current statement from the applicant’s primary mental health provider assessing the applicant’s current mental health status and mental health status for the 5 years preceding the date of the request for relief; and

    The statement must specifically address:
    (i) Whether the applicant has ever been a danger to himself or herself or others; and
    (ii) Whether the applicant would pose a danger to himself or herself or others if we granted the applicant’s request for relief and the applicant purchased and possessed a firearm or ammunition.

  2. Written statements and any other evidence regarding the applicant’s reputation.

    The statements must specifically:
    (i) Identify the person supplying the information;
    (ii) Provide the person’s current address and telephone number;
    (iii) Describe the person’s relationship with and frequency of contact with the applicant;
    (iv) Indicate whether the applicant has a reputation for violence in the community; and
    (v) Indicate whether the applicant would pose a danger to himself or herself or others if we granted the applicant’s request for relief and the applicant purchased and possessed a firearm or ammunition.

The applicant may obtain written statements from anyone who knows the applicant, including but not limited to clergy, law enforcement officials, employers, friends, and family members, as long as the person providing the statement has known the applicant for a sufficient period, has had recent and frequent contact with the beneficiary, and can attest to the beneficiary’s good reputation. At least one statement must be from an individual who is not related to the applicant by blood or marriage.

The burden is on the applicant to show that he/she is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that granting relief from the prohibitions imposed by 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(4) and (g)(4) will not be contrary to the public interest. Assuming those criteria are met, the SSA may grant relief. Unfortunately, the regulation does not state that they shall grant relief.

SSA’s regulations provide that a decision maker who was not involved in making the finding that the applicant’s benefit payments be made through a representative payee will review the evidence and act on the request for relief. If the request is denied, the applicant will have 60 days to file a petition for review in a Federal District Court. If the application for relief is approved, SSA will provide the applicant with written notice as to the reason for their decision, inform them that they are no longer prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) from purchasing, possessing, receiving, shipping, or transporting firearms or ammunition based on the prohibition that we granted the applicant relief from, and inform the Attorney General of the decision in order to remove the applicant from the NICS database.

SSA has 365 days to act upon an application pursuant to NICS Improvement Amendments Act.

 

Did you find this blog helpful or informative? Be sure to share it with your friends by clicking the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group and Prince Law Offices, P.C. on Facebook by using the “Like” button to the right

ak4nra_logo-01smallIf you are an NRA Life, Endowment, Patron or Benefactor member or an annual member of the past 5 consecutive years I ask that you please consider me in the upcoming election for the Board of Directors in February of 2017. Ballots will be mailed in the February issue of the NRA magazine to which you are subscribed. For more information, please visit www.adamkraut.com.

screen-shot-2016-12-14-at-8-54-53-pm

4 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Pennsylvania Announces the First Phase of Permit Applications for Grower/Processors and Dispensaries.

Yesterday, Secretary of Health, Dr. Karen Murphy of the Pennsylvania Department of Health (“DOH”) announced that applications for medical marijuana grower/processors and dispensaries will be available at the Pennsylvania DOH’s website, www.health.pa.gov, beginning January 17, 2017. Permit applications will be accepted from February 20, 2017 until March 20, 2017.

In less than a year, Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) has gone from enactment to the first phase of implementation. Pursuant to chapter 6 of the MMA, Section 601 authorizes grower/processors and dispensaries as the only entities authorized to receive a permit and operate as a medical marijuana organizations and grow, process or dispenses medical marijuana.

Section 602(a) of the MMA generally requires all applications to include:

1. Verification of all principals, operators, financial backers or employees of a medical marijuana grower/processor or dispensary.
2. A description of responsibilities as a principal, operator, financial backer or employee.
3. Any release necessary to obtain information from governmental agencies, employers and other organizations.
4. A criminal history record check.
5. Details relating to a similar license, permit or other authorization obtained in another jurisdiction, including any suspensions, revocations or discipline in that jurisdiction.
6. A description of the business activities in which it intends to engage as a medical marijuana organization.
7. A statement that the applicant: (i) Is of good moral character; (ii) Possesses the ability to obtain in an expeditious manner the right to use sufficient land, buildings and other premises and equipment to properly carry on the activity described in the application and any proposed location for a facility; (iii) Is able to maintain effective security and control to prevent diversion, abuse and other illegal conduct relating to medical marijuana; and (iv) Is able to comply with all applicable Commonwealth laws and regulations relating to the activities in which it intends to engage under this act.
8. The name, residential address and title of each financial backer and principal of the applicant. Each individual, or lawful representative of a legal entity, shall submit an affidavit with the application setting forth: (i) Any position of management or ownership during the preceding 10 years of a controlling interest in any other business, located inside or outside this Commonwealth, manufacturing or distributing controlled substances; and (ii) Whether the person or business has been convicted of a criminal offense graded higher than a summary offense or has had a permit relating to medical marijuana suspended or revoked in any administrative or judicial proceeding, and
9. Any other information the department may require.

Section 607 of the MMA sets forth the following fees and requirements to obtain a permit.

For a grower/processor:  1) An initial nonrefundable application fee of $10,000 must be paid; 2) A permit fee of $200,000 is required at the time of application. (The fee shall be returned if the permit is not granted); and 3)  A grower/processor must have at least $2,000,000 in capital, $500,000 of which must be on deposit with a financial institution.

For a dispensary: 1) An initial nonrefundable application fee of $5,000 must be paid: 2  A permit fee of $30,000 for each location must be paid. (The fee shall be returned if the application is not granted); and 3) A dispensary must have at least $150,000 in capital, which must be on deposit with a financial institution.

In October and November, the DOH drafted and published general regulations as well as specific regulations for both grower/processors and dispensaries. The regulations can be found at 28 PA. Code CHS 1141, 1151, and 1161.

Pursuant to 28 PA. Code §1141.23, no more than 25 permits will be issued for grower/processors and only one grower/processor permit per applicant. Additionally, no more than 50 dispensary permits will be issued and no more than five dispensary permits to one person. A dispensary permit may be used at no more than three locations.

28 PA. Code §1141.28 states the DOH shall publish in the Pennsylvania Bulletin notice of the initial permit application availability and the timeframe which they will be accepted. Only the form of application provided on the DOH’s website may be used and it must be submitted electronically.

Secretary Murphy further announced that this was the first phase of the program and that initially up to 12 permits will be issued for grower/processors and up to 27 permits will be issued for dispensaries, across Pennsylvania’s six medical marijuana regions. Secretary Murphy stated that “the decision for which counties will be issued permits in this first phase was determined by using the department’s medical data, as well as comments from more than 5,000 patients and nearly 900 potential grower/processors and dispensary applicants.” For further information on how many permits will be issued per each region please read the blog at http://cannabisindustrylawgroup.com/index.php/2016/12/21/pa-department-of-health-outlines-phase-i-of-medical-marijuana-program/

Leave a comment

Filed under Marijuana Law, Uncategorized

Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Medical Examinations

by Karl Voigt

Insurance medical examinations (IMEs) are a tool used by workers’ compensation carriers to control costs. Whether a claimant has been receiving benefits or is just attempting to obtain them, the carrier has a statutory right to send them for an examination with a doctor of its choice. These exams – if they turn out favorable to the insurer – can potentially end benefits or stop them before they even begin.

Section 314 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act allows an employer to request its employee to submit to a physical examination by a health-care provider at any time after an injury. The examiner is generally chosen and paid for by the employer. The doctor is also asked questions by the carrier regarding the necessity of medical treatment, the patient’s physical capacities, or whether a full recovery has been made. As a result, the doctor generates a report and, if it is used in litigation, the doctor will later testify by deposition against the injured worker.

Often examinations don’t take place at an actual doctor office; rather, they are at “IME farms”, companies that actually contract with insurance companies to perform dozens or even hundreds of IMEs a week. Then, these “farms” contract with doctors to perform the IMEs. You can only imagine that these doctors are selected by the “farms” because they give reliable answers that favor insurance companies. Rest assured that your attorney will be familiar with the reputation of the examining doctor. More importantly, judges are often very familiar with these doctors and their reputations. If a doctor performs far too many IMEs with curiously identical opinions, judges may be less inclined to find them credible. It is therefore sometimes actually a good thing for the injured worker if the carrier chooses to send him or her to a doctor who has a reputation as a “gun for hire”.

It’s always fun to cross-examine these IME doctors as to how many IMEs they perform a week and at what price, then how many times they testify by deposition as a result, and at what price. It’s not unusual at all to do the math and come up with more than half a million dollars a year just for doing exams for insurance companies.

The general rule is that carriers can get two IMEs a year.

Of course, if you fail to attend an IME, Section 314 goes so far as to allow the carrier to stop your benefits until you attend a rescheduled examination.

So, you’ve gotta show up at an office building and tell some doctor about the whole history of your injury – and before – and then be subject to yet another physical exam. There are of course general rules for attending an IME. First, you don’t have to bring any diagnostic studies or films despite what the notice might tell you. You are not required to be the insurance company’s servant. Let them do the work and get films if they want to review them. Second, you should be cooperative during the exam, but not volunteer too much information. Let the doctor ask you questions. If the doctor fails to ask vital questions, that can be used against him during cross-examination. Your attorney may want to discuss the physical portion of the examination more with you.

You should be reimbursed for your mileage if you drive to the examination.

Interestingly, Section 314(b) does give you the right to hire a doctor to attend the IME with you. Unfortunately, this is a cost that is not reimbursable to you by the carrier. It may be difficult to even find a doctor who would be willing to attend an IME as an observer.

When our clients attend an examination, they are given a brief form to complete after the exam, so we can begin to prepare for the doctor’s report. Naturally, when it becomes “your time”, we will be prepared and on your side.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized