Workers’ Compensation public information

[Chajoy1978]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I'm going to be going to court regarding child support and wanted to use the fact that the other parent has been on workers' compensation 4 times. I want to use this information to help prove that he doesn't want to work and doesn't want to pay his child support. The only way I can get evidence is by using the DIR website "search function". My question is, am I allowed to present it to the judge? I know it says public information but there are also laws about using the information that are confusing.

 

[ShyCat]

I doubt that worker's compensation claims can be used to prove someone doesn't want to work. Unless you could prove they were fraudulent claims, they don't show intent to avoid paying child support.

 

[Chajoy1978]

That's not what I'm asking

I appreciate your response but my question is if I can use the information legally or not.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I'm going to be going to court regarding child support and wanted to use the fact that the other parent has been on workers' compensation 4 times. I want to use this information to help prove that he doesn't want to work and doesn't want to pay his child support. The only way I can get evidence is by using the DIR website "search function". My question is, am I allowed to present it to the judge? I know it says public information but there are also laws about using the information that are confusing.

Is the DIR website public access?

 

[Chajoy1978]

Is the DIR website public access?

Yes. However, there are laws pertaining to how the information can be used and it's gibberish to me. So I was hoping someone was already familiar with it.

 

[Chajoy1978]

Is the DIR website public access?

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/eams/EAMS_PublicInformationSearch.htm

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I'm going to be going to court regarding child support and wanted to use the fact that the other parent has been on workers' compensation 4 times. I want to use this information to help prove that he doesn't want to work and doesn't want to pay his child support. The only way I can get evidence is by using the DIR website "search function". My question is, am I allowed to present it to the judge? I know it says public information but there are also laws about using the information that are confusing.

If you want the information for child support reasons, you should know that the Workers' Compensation Division cooperates in enforcement of child support obligations. In other words, Workers' Compensation records are shared with the Department of Child Support Services.

Here is a link to California Labor Code Section 110-139.6: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=00001-01000&file=110-139.6

Although I only briefly reviewed this (so you will want to verify), I think applicable sections for you to look at are 138.5 and 138.7 (which becomes operative on January 1, 2017). There are confidentiality provisions which require the redaction of personal identifying information from records available for public access.

 

[cbg]

Would it be out of line for me to inquire about the duration of these four workers comp claims?

 

[quincy]

I should have added to my previous post that initial workers' compensation claims are NOT public records. It is only those claims that are appealed that become accessible to the public.

And you can acquire records without the personal identifying information redacted but this requires that you disclose your purpose for wanting the records - and your request may (or may not) be denied based on the reasons you provide.

 

[Chajoy1978]

Would it be out of line for me to inquire about the duration of these four workers comp claims?

I'm not disclosing any personal information so I don't think so.
1) Injury date: 6/21/1995 Closing date: 2/26/1997
2) Injury date: 12/26/2001 Closing date: 10/23/2002
3) Injury date: 11/07/2003-11/07/2004 Closing date: 12/11/2006 & 7/05/2007 (Not sure why it's giving 2 dates. My only guess is that it was incomplete)
4) Injury date: 6/22/2011 Closing date: 4/04/2013

 

[LdiJ]

I'm not disclosing any personal information so I don't think so.
1) Injury date: 6/21/1995 Closing date: 2/26/1997
2) Injury date: 12/26/2001 Closing date: 10/23/2002
3) Injury date: 11/07/2003-11/07/2004 Closing date: 12/11/2006 & 7/05/2007 (Not sure why it's giving 2 dates. My only guess is that it was incomplete)
4) Injury date: 6/22/2011 Closing date: 4/04/2013

It looks like he has spent about 85 months out of the last 240 months on worker's comp. That is over 1/3 of the last 20 years. Either he is extraordinarily unlucky, or he has been playing the system.

However, I cannot see how that will make any real difference in a child support calculation unless he has also been unemployed for a good portion of the last 20 years as well.

 

[Chajoy1978]

It looks like he has spent about 85 months out of the last 240 months on worker's comp. That is over 1/3 of the last 20 years. Either he is extraordinarily unlucky, or he has been playing the system.

However, I cannot see how that will make any real difference in a child support calculation unless he has also been unemployed for a good portion of the last 20 years as well.

I'm sure he has. Each of these jobs were short lived. I just don't know how I could even prove that.

 

[Chajoy1978]

If you want the information for child support reasons, you should know that the Workers' Compensation Division cooperates in enforcement of child support obligations. In other words, Workers' Compensation records are shared with the Department of Child Support Services.

Here is a link to California Labor Code Section 110-139.6: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=00001-01000&file=110-139.6

Although I only briefly reviewed this (so you will want to verify), I think applicable sections for you to look at are 138.5 and 138.7 (which becomes operative on January 1, 2017). There are confidentiality provisions which require the redaction of personal identifying information from records available for public access.

The way I'm reading it is, the Judge would be entitled to the information. Hopefully that's the case. Guess I'll find out.

 

[cbg]

I had an idea, but looks like it isn't going to pan out. Just disregard me.