authentic injury, and you know that, you may witness it yourself personally? Is there any justification for that part of the act? Would you say that is a proper reasonable, human type of approach? Mr. INGRAM. Yes, sir. As I mentioned earlier, it is both good an bad. That part of the act is tremendous. I think, the 45 days that employees are paid under those circumstances are commendable. However, the lenghty period of time that it takes the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs to process a claim, after the initial 45 days, still exists. The act did not keep our employees, even those with a family, from going long periods of time without pay. The only good part is the 45 days they are paid. Mr. GAYDOS. Did you say you turned over the cases, 11 cases? Mr. GAYDOS. How many do you have that you can remember offhand during that period? Would that be like 7 out of 100? Mr. INGRAM. Well, it was several we questioned, probably about 10 out of 100. We have a very low percentage of those that the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs sustain, that are controverted. Mr. GAYDOS. Is it my understanding right now you have no investigative authority to justify questioning a case and if you question it, it is on the facts as stated? Mr. INGRAM. That is my understanding, yes, sir. Mr. GAYDOS. Would you be pursuing that according to a directive, written interoffice memorandum? Mr. INGRAM. Yes, sir. Mr. GAYDOS. Could you make that available to the committee? Mr. INGRAM. Yes, sir, I can do that. Mr. GAYDOS. Mr. Cornell? Mr. CORNELL. I noticed that in your statement you indicate steps that are taken to implement adequate controls over continuation of pay at the local level. Do you find that workers are rather faithful in complying with these steps? You apparently put out some type of a publication for their information. Do you find that the workers are faithful in complying with the provisions you have here on the local level? Mr. INGRAM. Mr. Cornell, I think the answer would be yes. Of course, there are exceptions to any rule. Mr. CORNELL. I noticed also that you mentioned the cost at your Army depot in wages paid to employees absent on comp have been $280,000. Do you have any way of comparing that or a basis for comparing that with the situation prior to 1974? Mr. INGRAM. I believe in appendix B, sir, we went back to 1972. Mr. CORNELL. Well, that gives the number of disabling injuries. I was speaking in terms of cost. I know that in appendix Č, I think it is, that you indicate the cost variation from year to year by quarters since the amendments of 1974. I was wondering about a comparison of cost. Mr. INGRAM. Sir? Mr. CORNELL. Go ahead. Mr. INGRAM. We didn't have continuation of pay before 1974. Mr. CORNELL. I realize that, but I mean as far as compensation is concerned. I am not talking about the comp program. Mr. INGRAM. I can give the number of cases that we had, sir. Mr. CORNELL. Well, I see that in your appendix. What about the suggestion of resumption of published list of doctors approved for treating compensation cases? Would you favor that? Mr. INGRAM. Yes, sir, very much. I think this would prevent employees from doctor shopping. Mr. CORNELL. Have you any substantial experience of that? Mr. CORNELL. Do you think that there would be considerable criticism of requiring them to go to a list of doctors that are approved for that purpose? Mr. INGRAM. I think there would be; yes, sir. I have talked to some physicians in our local community on this subject. They feel it is better to have it open and optional for an employee to select the doctors whom he or she chooses. By this I mean, the physicians feel that the employee should have this prerogative, not the company doctor. Follow me? Mr. CORNELL. I do. Do you know what method was used for the selection of these doctors that were on the approved lists? Mr. INGRAM. I do not know, sir. Ms. BALASKо. The medical director in San Francisco where I am from, at the Bureau of Labor, they had a medical director there and he picked out the doctors in my area who would treat the employees. Also in Sacramento. Mr. INGRAM. I do know they were approved by the Department of Labor. Mr. CORNELL. But neither the employees nor their representatives had any participation in the selection of those doctors? Ms. BALASKO. No, just the medical director to the Bureau of Employees Compensation. Ms. SCHROEDER. The doctors could apply to be on the authorized list. Mr. CORNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GAYDOS. In your statement you say that 39 percent of employees on continuation of pay are out for 7 days or less. What about the others, it should be 61 percent? Is my assumption proper, the 61 percent would be over that 7 days? Mr. INGRAM. Yes, sir. Mr. GAYDOS. If you could give us a breakdown, I would like to have it to show us how that continuation of pay works out. Mr. INGRAM. I am sorry, I didn't understand the question, sir. Mr. GAYDOS. You have stated in your statement 39 percent of the depot employees absent from duty on continuation of pay were absent for 7 days or less. We want to know on the remaining percentage how long they were off; 10 days, 15, 45. It is very important to us if we are going to be able to approach that problem, if it is a problem, with a proper solution. Mr. INGRAM. Yes, sir. Mr. GAYDOS. Counsel wants to know of those 39 percent were any of those contested, did you question any of them, or of the other percentage, how many did you question? Mr. INGRAM. I will have to furnish that for you, sir. Mr. GAYDOS. Someone mentioned here that a man runs from one doctor who hasn't given him an acceptable medical report and to another one. He finally finds a doctor who is going to substantiate his claim. That is what I understand has been testified to. Does that indicate then that he is doing something improper? Does that open him up to a full-scale investigation? Mr. INGRAM. It would, in my opinion, sir. Mr. GAYDOS. Would you, as a responsible supervisor, direct that that be one to be questioned? Mr. INGRAM. Yes, sir. Mr. GAYDOS. Then, if you would- Mr. INGRAM. I would have up until the point where we were instructed not to investigate. Mr. GAYDOS. Even if you saw that evidence that he had two doctors, one reporting in that he didn't have an acceptable injury under the act, then you received a second medical opinion which says he does; wouldn't that raise some kind of suspicion in your mind? Mr. INGRAM. Yes, sir. Mr. GAYDOS. And you say under the Department's directive you are not allowed to pursue that questioning? Mr. INGRAM. That's correct. Mr. GAYDOS. If the case continues, and you go up to the compensation board, do you let it go as is or take a position against it, or question it? Mr. INGRAM. Well, I fought a losing battle so far. I have fought hard, I think the record will indicate that, but I have lost. But we would controvert the claim. Mr. GAYDOS. Do you have any other suggestion, you or Mr. Hicks have any suggestion as to what we can do in that area of the law that you would think would be proper, acceptable, and humane? Mr. INGRAM. I had some recommendations, sir. Mr. GAYDOS. Refer to one, if you could, respond to my inquiry. Mr. INGRAM. All right, sir. Mr. GAYDOS. What do you think we should do with that 45-day clause? Mr. INGRAM. Well, my suggestion would be to allow the installation to adjudicate the claim. The problem, as I see it, not as a personal vendetta against the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, for I know they have the rules and regulations that govern them, but I think the installation should adjudicate claims since our money is being paid to employees whether or not the claim has merit. For example, I was instructed by the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs concerning an employee, whose treating physician stated he could return to work on light duty. The employee refused to return under any circumstances. We had light duty available. The work available was discussed with the treating physician, and the employee who refused it. I brought this to the attention of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs in Jacksonville, Fla. The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs stated the employee knows more about his condition than anyone else, including his treating physician. This employee's pay was continued for the 45 days. I did as I was instructed, even though I knew in my own heart this employee did not deserve his pay continued. Mr. GAYDOS. Well, repeatedly in the field of workmen's compensation, you always have that controversy between subjective and objective pain. I can tell you that from having written many, many opinions for the compensation board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Appellate people take care of it, sometimes properly and sometimes improperly, according to who is looking at it. But is that justification for doing away with a program which helps the worker who is legitimately injured, and who, if not for this program, would suffer immediate hardship because of his loss of income? That is the problem we have. Everyone is ignoring the man that suffers a real injury, no fault of his own, and has to make a refrigerator payment, and what-have-you, and pay rent, and he is off. We know we can't process that claim in 40 days or 30 days. How do you answer that? Because we are being accused, you know, of having passed legislation in a very hasty fashion, without too much thinking. That is what we are being accused of, and the committee has the responsibility of addressing itself to that limited area, and trying to come up with something that is really justified by the facts. I think you have problems. It is difficult to fight a man that exaggerates or a man who isn't completely honest in the presentation of his claim. It is difficult, and yet, we must keep in mind the person that really is an innocent victim of work circumstances. I think all of our thoughts in this matter have to have that humane touch to them, they just have to, because we have seen so many, many exposes of utter disregard for employee safety and health. Sitting here listening to you, I feel you utterly disregarded the authentic case when you suggested we simply cut the continuation of pay program out. Mr. INGRAM. No, I apologize if I insinuated- Mr. GAYDOS. You don't need an apology. Mr. INGRAM. Let me try to clarify. We will go to any extreme for a valid case, to whatever limits that we can extend ourselves to assist our employee in approving his claim. Just as we go to the opposite on a case we feel has no merit. It is a malingering type situation where employees are exploiting the system. To give you an illustration, we had an explosion at our installation on March 24 of this year. We had four people that were seriously injured in that explosion. On one of those individuals, I sent a member of my staff to Jacksonville, Fla., to the Office of Worker's Compensation Programs to try to get this employee's pay started. To my knowledge, it still hasn't been started and it is a valid case. Mr. GAYDOS. Let me interrupt you there. Someone has testified before this committee that if we doubled all of the OWCP personnel, you still couldn't get that man paid in time. They are never going to pay him, no matter how authentic his case is, because they don't have the ability to work on a case and process it properly. I haven't heard anybody suggest an advancement of benefits and after his case is determined, subtract from him someway that advancement because he doesn't qualify? Mr. INGRAM. The way we handle a claim where an employee is unable to return during the 45 days of COP is advise the employee to use sick leave if he has an adequate amount of leave to his credit. Mr. GAYDOS. But the man, who through no fault of his own has had to use his sick leave, he is excluded from that solution you had? Mr. INGRAM. This is correct, he has to suffer. Mr. GAYDOS. He is what we call out of luck. Mr. MORRIS. You do have the opportunity to advance up to 30 days sick leave to most, and we have extremely rare instances, at our installation, at least, in which anyone does go over the 30 days. We have had one in the past 3 years. Mr. GAYDOS. Thirty days might not be sufficient. Mr. MORRIS. That is quite true. Mr. GAYDOS. We are looking for some answers. Mr. CORNELL. Particularly, it seems to me, it would be a problem in that the suggestion is made that the employing agency should be delegated the authority to approve or disapprove the claims. You have already admitted the difficulty of and the delay that is involved in resolving the cases we have now, and I think this would be compounded if you had appeal rights. Mr. INGRAM. No, sir, I don't- Mr. CORNELL. You don't think so? Mr. MORRIS. If I might respond to that. I think if the staffing, for instance, at the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs district offices, remains essentially unchanged from that level now, including the recent addition to the authorization, in the agencies administering the 45-day continuation of pay, and then the Office of Workers' Compensation only concerned themselves with those cases which appeared that they might last more than 45 days, they would have sufficient manpower, I think, to make expeditious processing of appeals and I do not anticipate any kind of delay. Mr. CORNELL. I just wonder, of course, there is no way of determing, I wonder the percentage of cases that would be appealed. That would certainly have something to do with the problem whether or not--- Mr. MORRIS. Speaking only from our installation, I would suggest that the percentage of appeals from agency determinations would probably be less than 5 percent based on our controversion rate. We don't find too many that we controvert. Mr. CORNELL. Do you feel the same way? Mr. INGRAM. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNELL. Percentagewise? Mr. INGRAM. Yes, sir. We controvert possibly more than the other two installations. I feel like we do from what I have heard. But I agree, it would not create that much of a problem. Here, let me add one thing: The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is sitting 500 miles away from us, and I have personally examined many files, where the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs has a void of information that was sent them. What do they have to adjudicate a claim? I don't understand how they are going to tell an agency to continue a man's pay when the |