1986-08-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 I I Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 1986 Council Business, continued With regard to probable loss. the things that are most likely to happen are injuries to employees and, while we have not had great losses in that area, feels the city should promote a few basic concepts: a city-apPointed physician to give treatment to city employees who become injured on the job to make sure the employ- ees are being worked with effectively so they can return to work at the earliest possible time; especially in high stress or physically demanding job, to make sure that people are physically capable of performing those jobs and to use screening tools, such as physicals, to make sure we do not have problems: and, in general, to promote wellness to the employees. With regard to a city-appointed physician, it appeared to Brandt that the city would be assuming a potential liability; Lidstrom indicated she may have a subtle point, but indicated the physician is an independent contractor and is a professional and has to live and stand by his own decisions. Lidstrom indicated the main reason to use a city-appointed physician is so that the city does not lose control of the injured worker; if an employee does not wish to see that physician, they do not have to go per state law. Lidstrom also indicated that in working with Workers' Compensa- tion, one is dealing with a no-fault issue and it will be the city's cost if the person chooses his own doctor; Benke asked if a second medical opinion could be obtained would alleviate any problem; Lidstrom indicated the insurer will already do that whether ot not the city desires it, and emphasized the city would gain an element of control (medical treatment, a doctor familiar with the job duties, and the operations of the city, the avail- ability of like duty within the city, and knows how to integrate the employee back into the work force). Schmidt, understanding the control issue and having a physician who is familiar with Workers' Compensation law and procedures, suggested that a city-appointed physician should maintain and provide evidence of his or her own malpractice insurance. as hospitals do. Benke asked if specification of a doctor for treatment was an issue that has been historically barred from union contracts; Lidstrom stated the procedure for implementation is a physician is sought, they receive a flat fee based on state-mandated schedules, and the city says they will bring their injured workers to that physician but that the physician must also learn about the city and reach a certain level of comfort so that information freely flows back and forth, and noted it is less formal arrangement than a contract-type of relationship. Brandt inquired about the client/doctor relationship; Lidstrom indicated the client is the one who is paying. Page Twelve