The county has apparently received funding under the grant since 1994. “It’s based on performance,” said Lt. Dan Stroski an investigator with the DA’s office that heads up the program, a few years back. “The Fraud Assessment Commission likes the job we are doing.”
“The District Attorney’s Office remains absolutely committed to protecting the community from the damaging effects of workers’ compensation insurance fraud,” said District Attorney Jeff Reisig in a release back in 2007. “Our success in obtaining this grant validates the hard work we have been doing for many years.”
While the purview of the DA’s insurance fraud department extends beyond Workers’ Compensation fraud, that program is a major component of their efforts.
On Tuesday Lt. Dan Stroski delivered comments to the Fraud Assessment Commission. His comments were captured on You Tube.
At the meeting on Tuesday of the California Department of Insurance Fraud Assessment Commission, Lt. Stroski spoke to the commission, and responded to a question apparently from member Lilia Garcia.
According to her bio, Ms. Garcia is the executive director of the Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund (MCTF). The MCTF is a statewide janitorial watchdog organization that investigates janitorial contractors for employment law violations.
Apparently she asked Lt. Stoski about his knowledge of employee rights, to which he responded that he did not know anything about employee rights.
Lt. Stroski told the group, “I have to be honest, I don’t want to admit this. I haven’t done much in the way of outreach as it comes to employees right. I’m not qualified.”
“I don’t really know about what employees’ rights are when it comes to workers’ comp,” he said. “I know what fraud is, I can talk about that all day long. But in terms of what their rights are, I will admit to Yolo County I am neglectful of that.”
That begs the question as to how he can truly ascertain whether someone is committing a fraud if he does not understand the worker’s rights under the law.
Lt. Stroski continues, “So if anyone wants to help me out with that I would be glad to take that advice and run with it and include it in our outreach program. Bottom line is I have been remiss in doing that because I don’t feel I’m qualified. If you are going to ask me that, the answer is zero, I don’t feel qualified.”
Given some of the cases that the Vanguard is following, it seems rather incredible that Lt. Stroski could make those kinds of claims and yet be qualified to investigate and determine whether fraud is occurring.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A law enforcement officer ignorant of peoples rights? I’m shocked.
What an idiot, this guy is a Lt.? This is the best that DA Reisig can find to hire in hard times. He better be a good yes man for his rank since it sure seems he has no clue about being an investigator.
It is all about money and publicity for DA Reisig, he would make an ex-felon a Lt if he thought he could get grant money and free press out of it. That office has really gone down hill since the last DA (David Henderson) left.
The issue of “employee rights” is a vast areas of the law and separate from the narrow issue of what constitutes criminal fraud. For instance, employees have the right to be free from harassment in the work place, or have the right to take family leave under certain specified conditions, but what does that have to do with criminal fraud? And what is meant here by “employee rights”? Right with respect to agreements, benefits, breaks and leaves, child labor, disability rights, discrimination, hiring, hours, retaliation, safety & health, termination, unemployment? The question posed was clearly vague, and was not related specifically to criminal fraud as far as I can tell.
From Internet:
“WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE FRAUD PROGRAM
During the 1920s, most states, including California, accepted a new social insurance program known as workers’ compensation. In California, workers’ compensation insurance is a no-fault system. Injured employees need not prove the injury was someone else’s fault in order to receive workers’ compensation benefits for an on-the-job injury. The National Insurance Crime Bureau estimated in the year 2000, workers’ compensation insurance fraud was the fastest-growing insurance scam in the nation, costing the industry $5 billion per year by what many people consider a victimless crime. Often white-collar criminals, including doctors and lawyers, dupe the system through fraudulent activity and insurance companies “pick up the tab,” passing the cost onto policyholders, taxpayers and the general public.
The Workers’ Compensation Fraud Program was established in 1991 through the passage of Senate Bill 1218 (Chapter 116). The law made workers’ compensation fraud a felony, required insurers to report suspected fraud and established a mechanism for funding enforcement and prosecution activities. Senate Bill 1218 also established the Fraud Assessment Commission to determine the level of assessments to fund investigation and prosecution of workers’ compensation insurance fraud. The funding comes from California employers who are legally required to be insured or self-insured. The total aggregate assessment for Fiscal Year 2008-09 is $48,136,818.
During Fiscal Year 2008-09, the Fraud Division identified and reported 5,174 SFCs, assigned 539 new cases, made 218 arrests and referred 327 submissions to prosecuting authorities. Potential Loss amounted to $205,811,250.
The investigation of Workers’ Compensation Fraud very often involves difficult and lengthy investigations. These investigations have resulted in convictions and the reduction of a number of medical and/or legal workers’ compensation mills. Since Fiscal Year 2003-04, the CDI has participated as a member of the “Underground Economy Strike Force,” per Assembly Bill 202. The Fraud Division continues to focus its efforts in that area of the Underground Economy known as employer misrepresentation or Premium Fraud. Participation on the Strike Force helps the Fraud Division and district attorneys investigate and prosecute the premium fraud cases which most significantly impact the California economy and business climate.”
The following is a list of workers rights provided from California Department of Labor Relations.
[quote]1. Get training from your employer about workplace hazards and workers rights
2. Request information on injuries and illnesses in your workplace and information on hazardous substances in your workplace such as material safety data sheets and exposure records
3. Request action from your employer to correct hazards or violations
4. File a complaint with Cal/OSHA if you believe that there are either violations of Cal/OSHA standards or serious workplace hazards
5. Be involved in Cal/OSHA’s inspection of your workplace by participating in the walkaround
6. Find out the results of a Cal/OSHA inspection
7. Get involved in any meetings or hearings to discuss any objections your employer has to Cal/OSHA’s citations or to changes in abatement deadlines
8. File a formal appeal of deadlines for correction of hazards
9. File a Cal/OSHA discrimination or whistleblower complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement
10. Request a research investigation on possible workplace health hazards from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
11. File a petition to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board for a new standard
12. Participate in developing new standards by joining a Cal/OSHA standards development committee or by providing testimony to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board at a hearing when the board is considering adopting a new standard. [/quote]
It doesn’t appear that a person investigating workers comp fraud would need to know anything about workers rights to know if a person was committing fraud. If you are injured at work and say you can’t work but are filmed water skiing I don’t think works rights have much to do with that.
Comp injuries are reported to OSHA so that side is handled. The criminal side is handled by the DA’s office.
If Stroski was investigation companies for OSHA violations then you would have an argument.
Workers comp fraud also includes investigating doctors who are milking the system. Again, no need to know the “workers rights” there.
In the perfect world, Mr. Obvious has a point. However, issues the court before the courts are rarely clean and clear cut. The issue of rights versus fraud bleeds into each other. I know of a couple of current cases that this may well impact.
In a different county it might be less of an issue because the DA would oversee the operations of the investigator, in Yolo it may end up cleared up in a couple years. Meanwhile the life of the defendant is put through the ringer.
dmg: “According to her bio, Ms. Garcia is the executive director of the Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund (MCTF). The MCTF is a statewide janitorial watchdog organization that investigates janitorial contractors for employment law violations.
Apparently she asked Lt. Stoski about his knowledge of employee rights, to which he responded that he did not know anything about employee rights.”
And what was the context for her question, or was this a “gotcha” attempt?
Did you watch the video Elaine?
dmg: “Did you watch the video Elaine?”
Yes, and no context for the question was given, a question that clearly was asked sometime previously that is not shown on the video. Such a vague nonspecific and off point question smacks of “gotcha” tactics. As is obvious from the above commentary, employee rights law (employment law) has nothing to do with workers comp insurance fraud.
If the person was trying to “get him” why would she vote to allow the grant?
Roger,
This is the best that DA Reisig can find to hire in hard times.
You’re assuming Reisig hired him.
Gang expert[quote]In the perfect world, Mr. Obvious has a point. However, issues the court before the courts are rarely clean and clear cut. The issue of rights versus fraud bleeds into each other. I know of a couple of current cases that this may well impact.
In a different county it might be less of an issue because the DA would oversee the operations of the investigator, in Yolo it may end up cleared up in a couple years. Meanwhile the life of the defendant is put through the ringer. [/quote]
You are talking about two different courts, civil and criminal. A criminal court won’t hear a case about violating OSHA statues unless there is a criminal negligence element from the employer, VERY rare.
Investigations into workers comp fraud have to do with a crime, either in the reporting of or after the reporting of a claim, not working conditions.
I was at the California Department of Insurance; Workers’ Compensation Fraud Assessment Commission meeting (Wednesday; September 8, 2010) in which Lt. Daniel Stroski of the Yolo County District Attorney’s office spoke.
Representatives from EACH of California’s counties were called upon to submit their projected funds required for the 2011-2012 budget for investigating and prosecution of workers’ compensation fraud committed within the county. (Each county was called upon in alphabetical order; Lt. Stroski was last to speak from the District Attorney’s offices as his county starts with a “y”.)
First, Lilia Garcia DID NOT ask Lt. Stroski; nor anyone else for that matter, questions about “knowledge of employees rights” prior to – or during Stroski speaking to the Commission at the podium. Lt. Stroski came up with this topic all on his own; AFTER hearing representatives from other counties speaking that day of “employees rights”, going after those in the insurance industry who don’t pay for the injuries and illness from the workplace, premium fraud and x-mod evasion.
Although the video fails to show the entire response from Lilia Garcia; not only did Garcia respond to Lt. Stroski with, “Well, I’d be happy to give YOU a one day seminar” she additionally told Lt. Stroski that employees do have rights… just as employers do.
Second, Lt. Stroski should know there are both sides of a coin; employee/s no only defraud the employer/s, there are employer/s who defraud the employee/s.
Although Stroski speaks of his sting operations; in catching employers without workers’ compensation insurance (one example of workers’ compensation fraud) he fails to even address another aspect of workers’ compensation fraud against an employee; “[employer] illegally denying employee benefits”. This is in clear violation of the employee’s or ex-employees rights. To give credibility to this please see the following:
orangecountyda.com/docs/132475112009biennialreport2009.pdf
QUOTE:
ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE FRAUD The OCDA prosecutes Workers’ Compensation Insurance fraud, which drives up insurance rates for legitimate businesses. Investigations and prosecutions include fraud by applicants, employers who fail to have required coverage OR ILLEGALLY DENY EMPLOYEE BENIFITS, medical and legal providers, and insurance insiders. The OCDA reviews approximately 400 applicant fraud and 60 premium fraud referrals each year. The Unit filed 30 new cases during 2007 and 2008. END OF QUOTE
NOWHERE within any of the comments to this article have I seen what the California Department of Insurance website says about “workers’ compensation fraud”
~What is Insurance Fraud? Fraud occurs when someone knowingly lies to obtain some benefit or advantage to which they are not otherwise entitled OR SOMEONE KNOWINGLY DENIES SOME BENEFIT THAT IS DUE AND TO WHICH SOMEONE IS ENTITLED. Depending on the specific issues involved, an alleged wrongful act may be handled as an administrative action by the Department or the Fraud Division may handle it as a criminal matter.
California and federal laws also permit the Fraud Division to pursue its cases federally. In those instances, the crime of “insurance fraud” is usually pursued as “mail fraud,” “criminal racketeering” or other federal offenses.
Cases investigated by the Fraud Division most often involve criminal acts involving automobile property and personal injury, workers’ compensation….
Workers’ Compensation:
~Employer Defrauding Employee – Employer committing illegal act against employee(s).
~Misclassification – Misclassifying the type of workers to obtain workers’ compensation coverage at a lower premium. (Example: classifying roofers as clerical, etc.)
~Under Reported Wages – Misrepresenting payroll to obtain workers’ compensation coverage at a lower premium. (Example: Over-reporting wages as if employees are experienced journeyman with less likelihood of injury and thus allowing for lower premiums or under-reporting payroll to keep premiums lower.)
~X-Mod Evasion – Misrepresenting claims history by not reporting reportable injuries or by creating shell companies to give the impression of a non or low claims history to obtain workers’ compensation coverage at a lower premium.
SINCE Lt. Stroski IS the INSURANCE FRAUD UNIT at the Yolo County District Attorney’s office; shouldn’t he have known of “employee rights”?
I would say that the following are clear violations of “employee rights”:
~illegal acts committed by an employer
~job duties and job title being misclassified
~wages being under reported
~NOT REPORTING “REPORTABLE INJURIES”
Mr. Obvious,
[quote]You are talking about two different courts, civil and criminal. A criminal court won’t hear a case about violating OSHA statues unless there is a criminal negligence element from the employer, VERY rare. [/quote]
I’m only talking about criminal because that’s all I know. It sounds like from the above post there is more than one issue going here, but I know of a criminal matter that this will directly tie into.
If Lt. Stroski heads up the fraud unit for the DA’s office, and the DA’s gets 1/4 of million dollars in grants for fraud, Lt. Stroski should know something about employee rights.
I can understand that he might not know everything about employee rights, but he said he knew nothing.
As a tax payer, I am a bit “miffed” how we can give $254,000 in grants to someone that can’t answer something on this question.
Mr. Obvious’s comment, “It doesn’t appear that a person investigating workers comp fraud would need to know anything about workers rights to know if a person was committing fraud. If you are injured at work and say you can’t work but are filmed water skiing I don’t think works rights have much to do with that.
Mr. Obvious’s comment is a pretty weak argument. Any person can figure out that someone water skiing is not injured. It takes no experience or knowledge to know this, but we are talking about an official who is responsible for a fraud unit that gets $254,000 in grants (plus a salary)to investigate fraud.
One of the complaints in Yolo County is the lack of investigations done on many cases. This story points to one of the problems. How can a person accurately do an investigation if he/she doesn’t understand both sides of the problems he/she is investigating.
By the comments of the person who attended the Commission meeting, it sounds like Lt. Stroski was in the minority–most of the others knew about employees rights.
biotechharm: “First, Lilia Garcia DID NOT ask Lt. Stroski; nor anyone else for that matter, questions about “knowledge of employees rights” prior to – or during Stroski speaking to the Commission at the podium.”
Listen to the video. Stroski specifically states Garcia asked him about employee rights.
biotechharm: “SINCE Lt. Stroski IS the INSURANCE FRAUD UNIT at the Yolo County District Attorney’s office; shouldn’t he have known of “employee rights”?
I would say that the following are clear violations of “employee rights”:
~illegal acts committed by an employer
~job duties and job title being misclassified
~wages being under reported
~NOT REPORTING “REPORTABLE INJURIES””
Listen to the video. Stroski’s charge under the grant is very narrow – premium fraud – the DA’s Office sends a representative (Stroski) to construction sites to do sting operations to catch those employees who are not carrying unemployment insurance. It should also be noted that he partners with other agencies, such as the Dept. of Insurance and Dept. of Industrial Relations. Also note Stroski indicated Garcia had given him “advice” that he should become more familiar with employee rights, and he stated he was more than willing to learn.
To my mind, Stroski acted as a consummate professional; knows the job he is tasked to perform; the grant dollars are going to catch employees who are not carrying worker’s comp (usually those who are not licensed). This is in keeping with the Yolo DA’s mission to discourage unlicensed contractors, who hurt legitimate business in this county.
Just as an aside, I am an attorney who primarily practices in elder law, family law and homeowner’s association law. But I can tell you there are many aspects of each type of law that I am not familiar with, because each area of the law is so large and extremely complex, as is employment law. That does not mean that I should not be practicing those types of laws, just because I don’t know every aspect. I only need to know those aspects that effect my client. Stroski knows premium fraud when he sees it. Why is it NECESSARY for him to know other aspects of employment law that do not come into play for the type of work he is doing under the grant?
fai: “If Lt. Stroski heads up the fraud unit for the DA’s office, and the DA’s gets 1/4 of million dollars in grants for fraud, Lt. Stroski should know something about employee rights.
I can understand that he might not know everything about employee rights, but he said he knew nothing.”
Listen to the video carefully. Stroski is charged with uncovering premium fraud under the grant, not employer fraud. If the DA’s Office were given more grant money, I’m sure they would be more than happy to go after employer fraud – but that is a much harder crime to catch. It will involve much more investigative work, and is much harder to prove.
Please keep in mind that Lt. Daniel Stroski testified at the California Department of Insurance – WORKERS’ COMPENSATION FRAUD ASSESSMENT COMMISSION concerning the monies needed by the Yolo County District Attorneys’ office to FIGHT WORKERS COMPENSATION FRAUD for 2011/2012 period.
Stroski only requested $254,000. He could have requested more, it was his choice not to do so.
TO: E Roberts Musser:
biotechharm: “First, Lilia Garcia DID NOT ask Lt. Stroski; nor anyone else for that matter, questions about “knowledge of employees rights” prior to – or during Stroski speaking to the Commission at the podium.”
Listen to the video. Stroski specifically states Garcia asked him about employee rights.
REPLY:
You are incorrect. What you see on Stroski’s video footage is from the point where he took the podium to speak; Garcia never asked Lt. Stroski about “employee rights”. The video footage was not altered in any way. Should you doubt this; then I suggest you ask for the full transcription of the meeting, as all verbal communications are captured by way of a stenotype keyboard (as is the case in all workers compensation fraud assessment meetings).
Stroski did say, “So, if you would’ve asked me that question the answer is ZERO because I don’t feel qualified,”
APPLICABLE PORTION OF STROSKI’s VIDEO TRANSCRIPTION:
“I gotta be honest with ya; I been [inaudible] be able to admit this, but I haven’t done much in the way of outreach as it relates to employee’s rights because I don’t feel I’m qualified. I’ve… I don’t really know about what employee’s right are when it comes to the workers’ comp arena. I know what fraud is… I can talk about that all day long, but in terms of what their rights are, I will admit to Yolo County being a little neglectful in that, so if anybody wants to help me out in that I’d be happy to take that advise and run with it and we’ll include it in our outreach program… but, the bottom line is I have been remiss in doing that because I don’t feel I’m qualified. So, if you would’ve asked me that question the answer is ZERO because I don’t feel qualified, but I’m not opposed to trying.”
TO: E Roberts Musser:
biotechharm: “SINCE Lt. Stroski IS the INSURANCE FRAUD UNIT at the Yolo County District Attorney’s office; shouldn’t he have known of “employee rights”?
I would say that the following are clear violations of “employee rights”:
~illegal acts committed by an employer
~job duties and job title being misclassified
~wages being under reported
~NOT REPORTING “REPORTABLE INJURIES””
Listen to the video. Stroski’s charge under the grant is very narrow – premium fraud – the DA’s Office sends a representative (Stroski) to construction sites to do sting operations to catch those employees who are not carrying unemployment insurance. It should also be noted that he partners with other agencies, such as the Dept. of Insurance and Dept. of Industrial Relations. Also note Stroski indicated Garcia had given him “advice” that he should become more familiar with employee rights, and he stated he was more than willing to learn.
REPLY:
Again you are incorrect; Stroski is NOT just a representative at Yolo County DA’s office, Lt. Stroski IS in charge of the Insurance Fraud Unit for the Yolo County District Attorney’s office. According to the History of Pay Changes from 2004 to October, 2009; http://www.docstoc.com/docs/18969876/Yolo-County-District-Attorney-Salary-Information
Stroski made 9,028.00 per month as of the date of 1/4/2009. What his monthly salary is after the date of 1/4/2009 is unknown at this time.
Stroski’s duties as such DO NOT limit him to JUST investigations of “premium fraud” with regard to workers compensation fraud; his duties additionally include investigations of the illegal acts committed by an employer against the employee, job duties and job title being misclassified, wages being under reported and not reporting “REPORTABLE INJURIES”. These are all listed under “Workers’ Compensation” on the California Department of Insurance; “Fraud: What is Insurance Fraud?”… http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0300-fraud/0100-fraud-division-overview/0100-what-is-insurance-fraud/#Workers_Compensation
Lt. Stroski cannot chose what he decides HE wants to investigate; not when it comes to insurance and/or workers’ compensation fraud.
Additionally, you may wish to view the following website http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0300-fraud/0100-fraud-division-overview/0500-fraud-division-programs/workers-comp-fraud/upload/revised_wc_regs.pdf
California Code of Regulations Title 10: Investment Chapter 5: Insurance Commissioner Sub-Chapter 9: Insurance Fraud
Article 3
§ 2698.50: Authority and Purpose
These regulations are promulgated pursuant to authority granted to the Insurance Commissioner under the provisions of Section 1872.83 of the California Insurance Code. The purpose of these regulations is to set forth the criteria for distribution of funds to district attorneys for enhanced investigation and prosecution of workers’ compensation insurance fraud cases, including an application process and subsequent reporting requirements.
§ 2698.59: District Attorney Reporting
Each district attorney receiving regular annual funds and/or augmentation funds pursuant to Section 1872.83 shall submit an annual report at the close of the regular annual funding program period, within the deadlines specified in subsection (d), below, to the Commissioner on the local program and its accomplishments. Failure to submit the annual report shall be considered in subsequent funding decisions. At a minimum the report shall include the following items:
(a)An Expenditure Report, which shall include the following:
(1) (2) (3)
Personnel: salaries and benefits. Operations cost breakdown.
Explanation of any significant variances from the district attorney’s plan as approved.
(b)A financial report prepared by an independent auditor who is a qualified state or local government auditor or independent public accountant licensed by the State of California or the County Auditor Controller. The audit report shall certify that local expenditures were made for the purposes of the program as specified in
Section 1872.83 of the Insurance Code, the regulations as adopted, the guidelines in the Request for Application, and the County Plan.
(1)The auditor shall use county policies and procedures as the standard for verifying appropriateness of personnel and support costs.
(2)In the event the program audit is included as part of an organization-wide audit, revenues and expenditures for the local program must be shown separately.
(c)A Program Report, which shall include the following:
(1)Number of investigations initiated related to workers’ compensation insurance fraud, with number of defendants indicated;
(2)Number of arrests or civil suit filings related to workers’ compensation insurance fraud, with number of defendants indicated;
(3)Number of convictions or civil awards related to workers’ compensation insurance fraud, with number of defendants, number of trials, number of pleas and/or settlements indicated;
(4)Dollar savings realized as a result of workers’ compensation insurance fraud case prosecutions, including fines and penalty assessments ordered and collected and restitution ordered and collected, with number of defendants indicated;
(5)Summary of activity with respect to pursuing a reduction of workers’ compensation fraud in coordination with the following:
(A) (B) (C)
Fraud Division. Insurance companies.
Employers, as defined in Section 3300 of the Labor Code, who are self-insured for workers’ compensation and doing business in the state.
(d)The deadlines for submission are as follows:
(1)Expenditure Reports and Audit Reports must be submitted to the Commissioner no later than four (4) months after the close of the program period as specified in the Request for Application. A county may report an extension of time for the submission of the Expenditure and/or Budget Report in the event an organization-wide audit will delay the submission of either or both of the said reports.
(2)Program Reports must be submitted to the Commissioner no later than two months after the close of the program period as specified in the Request for Application.
(e)There shall be a grant liquidation period for ninety (90) days following the termination of the program period during which costs incurred but not paid may be paid and deducted from the program budget.
(f)The Commissioner may perform such additional audits or reviews of any local program as he or she may deem necessary and shall have access to all reports, working papers, correspondence, or other documents, including audit reports and audit working papers related to the audit report or local program.
Note: Authority cited: Section 1872.83, Insurance Code; CalFarm Insurance Company, et al. v. Deukmejian, et al. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 805, 824.
Reference: Section 1872.83, Insurance Code. END OF SECTION
biotechharm: “REPLY:
You are incorrect. What you see on Stroski’s video footage is from the point where he took the podium to speak; Garcia never asked Lt. Stroski about “employee rights”. The video footage was not altered in any way. Should you doubt this; then I suggest you ask for the full transcription of the meeting, as all verbal communications are captured by way of a stenotype keyboard (as is the case in all workers compensation fraud assessment meetings).
Stroski did say, “So, if you would’ve asked me that question the answer is ZERO because I don’t feel qualified,”
APPLICABLE PORTION OF STROSKI’s VIDEO TRANSCRIPTION:
“I gotta be honest with ya; I been [inaudible] be able to admit this, but I haven’t done much in the way of outreach as it relates to employee’s rights because I…”
You conveniently omitted part of the video transcript in which Stroski said “And I want to address one thing Commissioner Garcia asked about…”. Listen to the video more carefully, it’s on there…
biotechharm: “Again you are incorrect; Stroski is NOT just a representative at Yolo County DA’s office, Lt. Stroski IS in charge of the Insurance Fraud Unit for the Yolo County District Attorney’s office.”
Yes, and he partners with other agencies, so they can provide their expertise, including Dept. of Insurance and Industrial Finance…
E Roberts Musser said:
You conveniently omitted part of the video transcript in which Stroski said “And I want to address one thing Commissioner Garcia asked about…”. Listen to the video more carefully, it’s on there…
REPLY:
Garcia did not question Stroski individually about what he knew about “employee rights”. What Stroski was inferring to was the California Department of Insurance “OUTREACH PROGRAM” which includes employee rights when it come to insurance fraud; going after those in the insurance industry who don’t pay for the injuries and illness from the workplace, premium fraud and x-mod evasion.
STROSKI SAYS:
“So, we’re doing what I think we can do to take your dollar and stretch it as far as we can. SO, THAT’S WHAT WE’VE DONE FOR OUTREACH; and I wanted to address one thing Commissioner Garcia asked about.
I gotta be honest with ya; I been [inaudible] be able to admit this, but I HAVEN’T DONE MUCH IN THE WAY OF OUTREACH AS IT RELATES TO EMPLOYEE’S RIGHTS, I don’t feel I’m qualified.”
FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE:
*Enforcement – To protect the public from economic loss and distress by actively investigating and arresting those who commit insurance fraud and to reduce the overall incidence of insurance fraud through anti-fraud outreach to the public, private, and government sectors.
*Also, as part of the Department’s mission to protect consumers, the Education and Outreach Program provides speakers who can travel off-site to participate in public events such as town hall meetings, business and community fairs, and professional association events.
This is what Stroski was talking about when he said:
“We do talk to a lot of people, I’m a member of Rotary Club and we have a lot of agricultural members in my Rotary Club and I travel throughout West Sacramento, Davis, Winters whatever and I’m always talking about insurance fraud… premium fraud whatever”
I know what Stroski said at the meeting; as I said, I was there. I had also heard what the many men and women from the District Attorneys Offices had to say; who spoke at the podium before Stroski. I also know that many; actually most of them, spoke about the fraud being committed against employee’s by the insurance industry who don’t pay for legitimate claims for a workplace injury or illness. There was also much discussion about employers who don’t report workplace injuries or illnesses and the fact that employee/s don’t know they have a right to compensation for on the job injuries or illnesses.
I don’t know why you continue to try and split hairs Elaine on the matter of Stroski not knowing what employees rights are. However, it is, and has always been his duty to know that employees have rights just as employers do in his position at the Yolo County D.A.s office.
For someone, who as of the January 2009, made $108,000 a year to not know what his job entails is downright absurd. As I said before, Lt. Stroski cannot chose what he decides HE wants to investigate.
To biotechharm, what part of “and I wanted to address one thing Commissioner Garcia asked about” don’t you understand?
biotechharm: “For someone, who as of the January 2009, made $108,000 a year to not know what his job entails is downright absurd. As I said before, Lt. Stroski cannot chose what he decides HE wants to investigate.”
It is a matter of what he was assigned to know under the grant…you continue to ignore the fact that he partners with the Dept. of Insurance and other agencies, who may have the necessary expertise he does not…
And by they way, his insurance fraud duties are only half time…
To biotechharm, what part of “and I wanted to address one thing Commissioner Garcia asked about” don’t you understand?
REPLY:
Since you did not attend the 9/8/2010 California Department of Insurance Workers’ Compensation Fraud Assessment Commission meeting and did not hear what was said and by whom at specific periods during the meeting, I suggest you order the full transcript.
As said previously, I was at the meeting and I know what was said.
The Yolo County D.A.s Workers’ Compensation/Insurance Fraud Unit has the same duties as every other California county Workers’ Compensation/Insurance Fraud Unit’s.