‘Rule on employer medical responsibility draconian’

By AGNES E. DONATO
REPORTER

A Department of Labor hearing officer has described as “somewhat draconian” the 96-day rule on employer responsibility for medical expenses incurred by former employees.

Hearing officer Linn H. Asper said this, as he ruled that employers Manuel and Gloria Mesa are not responsible for the medical expenses incurred in Jan. 2002 by a now-deceased former employee.

Under the 96-day rule, an employer of an alien worker with a pending labor complaint is responsible for medical expenses incurred by the employee within 96 days after expiration of the worker’s permit.

Hearing officer Linn H. Asper said the rule, which was established by the Superior Court and adopted in full by the Supreme Court, was intended to encourage the government to resolve labor complaints promptly.

“[Because] most labor complainants cannot afford to pay for their own medical care…the Department of Public Health usually has to absorb the costs of medical care of a nonresident worker whose former employer is excused from payment of medical expenses,” he added.

But Asper noted that the 96-day rule does not include the time allowed by law for administrative hearing and decision by the hearing office.

It also does not factor in any time for delays caused by motions, discovery and continuances in a contested case, he added.

“Therefore, the 96-day rule is somewhat draconian, because the best efforts of the Department of Labor normally will not produce a final order in 96 days,” Asper said.

He added, “Nevertheless, [the rule] provides a clear and easy way to calculate an end for employer medical responsibility and it has been applied by the hearing office and the department countless times since 1996.”

In a five-page administrative order, Asper also freed the Mesas from responsibility for the $3,792 in medical expenses incurred by former employee Dewan Jalal Uddin when the worker suffered a series of strokes in January 2002.

Uddin sued the employers at the Federal District Court over nonpayment of overtime and other complaints in March 2001, and entered in to a settlement agreement with them the following month. He was unable to transfer to a new employer, as he had died on Jan. 30, 2002.

DPH then billed the Mesas, as Uddin’s last employer of record, for the hospital’s expenses of the worker’s last illness.

DPH later refused to issue health certificates for the Mesas’ other employees pending payment of Uddin’s medical bills.

Using the 96-day rule, Asper said the employers are not responsible for the medical bills because the 96-day period started to run when Uddin filed his complaint at the Department of Labor on April 15, 2001.

“More than 250 days passed between that date and the date Uddin incurred the medical expenses that are now in dispute,” Asper said.