Posted On: March 19, 2007, 7:24 pm CDT

Posted By: chad balaamaba

I've been busy cashing all these WC checks I've been getting; man, do I have writers cramp. They don't let you do direct deposit on these things for some reason.

Wish I had factored that into my colussus computations.

Just for the record, I am no fan of colussus. However, each company sets colussus up based upon their historical payments for certain types of claims based upon geographical/venue type issues. My experience with a former company was they were drastically overpaying losses due to their use of colussus; it was preventing the adjuster from thinking, or allowing them not to think.

If you have historically underpaid losses, that data is fed into the system; same if you have overpaid historically. Not sure why Jim believes he has a given right to examine any database any more than he has the right to examine the adjuster's file, but the system really isn't sinister unless the company who enters the data then 'turns it down' so as to undervalue by a factor on the historical results.

I know there are people out there who understand it better than I, if so, please feel free to add. I am not attempting to give any secrets away.

I am not a fan as the system cannot anticipate every given situation and venue.

In my particular situation, the company I was working with used the system. After examining every regional office, I found the average soft tissue injury was being overpaid by an average of 15-20%. I based my opinion on my experience settling similar losses. I have worked all 50 states and CA; you get a pretty good feel for it after you lose some (allot) of hair.

Anycase, that company made the changes I recommended (after I left the company for other pastures) and lowered their severity exposure; not by changing the evaluation, but by removing the restrictions they were forcing their reps to work with; in other works, they let the adjusters and supervisors think!

I've lost track of where this who thing started; there's allot of anger directed against anyone with cash or power in this country. All I, and many other posters have wondered, is why it was wrong to question why a claimaint with such a colorful history of back injuries was due so much in 'bad faith'? I'd love more info; Travellers may have shopped for opinions; if they did, bad on them. And let's not assume all Iowa juries are conservative; many are, but Iowa is not the conservative haven many think it to be. There are liberal areas there, too; it's pretty middle of the road.