Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05201986 - 2.4 BOARD OIF SUPERVISORS FRCM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Cwtra By: Joseph J. Tonda, Risk Manager and Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: A. W. Walenta, Asst. to DATE: May 15, 1986 CouY � SUBJECT: MANDATORY ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS: TORT LIABILITY REFORM 11 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND Alm JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: Maintain the binding arbitration provision in the County health plan agreements with paying enrollees, and investigate the use of binding arbitration on claims by all users of the County medical and human service contract services. Consider arbitration as another method to resolve certain identified claims against the County, which would otherwise be handled under the judicial system. Further investigate the use of binding arbitration, especially on claims that have poten- tial for high loss. BACKGROUND: The increasing number and cost of claims against the County necessitate a continual search for and examination of creative ways to handle those claims. Binding arbitration may be another method to handle some claims. The Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Northern California has for more than seven years, had a provision of binding arbitration on medical malpractice claims by members of its Plan against Kaiser/Permanente., Their experience with binding arbitration is they have paid more frequently on claims which they believe would have been won in the judicial system, but Kaiser has avoided being hit with large "shock losses". Overall , Kaiser believes the costs of claims handled through binding arbitration are slightly less than the costs if the claims had been handled under the judicial system. Based on the Kaiser experience, binding arbitration may be a viable method to resolve some claims against the County that have a potential for high loss. Claims against the County with the potential for high loss usually involve medical services, streets and roads, law enforcement and landslides. In order to have binding arbitration, there must be a contractual relationship between the two parties. Of the above four areas, a contractual relationship only exists in the Health Services area. The County Health Plan has binding arbitration provisions in contracts with enrollees in the Health Plan who pay premiums for The Plan's medical coverage. The County does not . have binding arbitration provisions with users of The Plan who do not pay for services. Absent enabling legislation, the County could not lawfully require agreement to arbitra- tion by persons legally entitled to County medical services, and if such legislation was obtained, its constitutionality would be uncertain. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: A YES SIGNATURE: (,J RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEND ION OF BQ RD COMMITTEE y APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X ACCEPTED the report; approved in concept the establishment of a policy providing for mandatory arbitration of claims; and referred to the Internal Operations Committee for review with appropriate county staff the development of procedures for implementation of mandatory arbitration where feasible. The Internal Operations Committee is to report to the Board with their recommendations. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ---- ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC; County Administrator ATTESTED May 201986 County CounselPHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF r Risk Manager Internal Operations Committee SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY t ,DEPUTY M38217-83 tl Most claims against the County are resolved through rejections that are not appealed, settlement negotiations, and settlement conferences. Very few claims are resolved by trial with or without jury. Should the County use binding arbitration on claims filed against it, based on the Kaiser experience, the County would probably pay more frequently on those claims but loss results might be more predictable with less chance of being held for "shock losses". However, the County must be very cautious about trading binding arbitration for its rights and immunities provided under the present judicial system. Arbitration provisions are also an alternative that should be explored with the County's human service contract providers. The Departments that administer human services contracts will be requested to review the merits of arbitration provisions for client claims with those providers.