| |
| |
|
| |
A series of articles emphasizing practical
knowledge you can't find in practice guides
and interviews with experts who share
their techniques for effective and efficient
case management
|
 |
Articles emphasizing practical knowledge you can't find in
practice guides
|
|
Profiles of people who changed workers’ compensation law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
• Warren Schneider
• Marjory Harris
|
|
|
|
|
 |
< Continued from page 2
HARRIS: Of the many decisions you
participated in, would you change any if you had
the chance?
GLOW: Yes. The Goler decision [Goler v. W & J Sloane Co.,
44 Cal. Comp. Cas. (MB) 1065
(W.C.A.B. 1979)] that interpreted the Policy and Procedural Manual
rule on attorneys’ fees.
I was wrong, in adopting the fee provision in the Policy & Procedural
Manual, about setting
attorneys’ fees in 100% cases at 12% of the old PD rate [before 4/1/74]. It was
unfair to set
the fee so low in 100% cases. The Reagan administration wanted us to adopt a
low set fee
for all cases, and I was able to get that scuttled, but there was pressure on
us to do
something about fees. We adopted the policy 9-12%, with 15% for extraordinary
services.
I think we should have left it to the discretion of the trial judge, pretty
much the way it is with depo fees.
HARRIS: What are your thoughts about what is happening in the
comp industry?
GLOW: I feel like crying – it’s all so unfair to the workers.
The original bargain, in 1917, was
that workers gave up the right to sue the employer in exchange for temporary
disability,
permanent disability, and medical treatment [the Workers’ Compensation
Insurance and Safety
Act]. The PD now is so inadequate. Medical treatment has become a joke if you
can get it at
all. There is a disregard for whether the worker can even work. It eventually
falls on the
welfare system, or the taxpayer.
HARRIS: Do you see any improvement in the workers’
compensation delivery system in
the future?
GLOW: The pendulum always swings. There does seem to be some
movement in adequately
staffing the Board, both with clerical personnel and Judges. That is essential
for improvement.
SB 899, will in the future, when the pendulum swings, be changed. As you know,
I am
Jewish and a strong supporter of Israel, whose National Anthem is Hatikva. That
means hope.
HARRIS: What led you to become a lawyer, and then to workers’
compensation law?
GLOW: I wanted to be a labor lawyer since I was in junior high
school. I read a lot about the
labor movement and people that were instrumental in starting the labor movement
in this
country. They inspired me. I did my undergraduate work at UCLA, majoring in
economics.
The Korean War interrupted my schooling. After the war I finished my
undergraduate work
and went on to Law School at UCLA. I received my JD from there and went to work
for the
Levy firm. The firm was basically divided into 3 groups: labor, comp, and PI. I
worked in all 3
departments. I decided to focus on comp. It seemed more personal, more
one-on-one, and I
found myself more passionately involved in the client’s case and felt
personally rewarded
when I could help an injured worker.
HARRIS: In addition to being an applicants’ attorney, you were
a commissioner of the Workers’
Compensation Appeals Board and later a judge. Tell me about that.
GLOW: I became a commissioner in August 1975 and served until
1981.Then I became a trial
judge. After retiring as a judge in 1986, I returned to private practice until
the end of 1994.
HARRIS: How political was the board? When board members were
appointed were they
given any mandates or suggestions on what decisions were to be made? Did
anybody try to
influence the board?
GLOW: When Jerry Brown made those first four appointments,
they were not political
appointments. It was amazing, really. They were all very knowledgeable in the
field of
workers’ comp. Mel Witt, Florence Pickard, Gordon Gaines and myself all came
from workers'
comp and really knew comp. By his second term, Brown was making political
appointments.
But we were never told how to decide things. There was no outside input or
influence.
|
|
