SECTION V TABULATION OF EXPERIENCE
1. Experience Used for the Merit Rating Plan
The experience used for purposes of the Merit Rating Plan shall be the individual risk experience valued at least three months prior to the RED and reported in accordance with the provisions of the Delaware Workers’ Compensation Statistical Plan. It shall include voluntary compensation insurance but shall exclude maritime employments and employments under the Federal Employees’ Liability Act.
2. Merit Rating Plan Forms
To determine the Merit Rating Plan adjustment the prescribed experience shall be tabulated by the DCRB on approved Merit Rating Plan forms.
3. Payrolls
The audited payrolls or other exposures for each classification for the experience period shall be tabulated by policy years.
4. Losses
Incurred losses or claims reported for all policy periods considered in qualifying a risk for the Merit Rating Plan shall be tabulated in the following manner:
-
- Claims having no indemnity benefit payment or case reserve for indemnity benefit payment shall be excluded from the experience tabulation for purposes of the Merit Rating Plan. Losses as reported (indemnity, medical and total) shall be shown for each policy year. Losses incurred shall be on a gross basis, before the application of the deductible when such coverage is provided.
- All claims not excluded from the experience tabulation for purposes of the Merit Rating Plan by virtue of sections (a) above shall be listed in the experience tabulation with the following information:
- Policy number
- Policy effective date
- Claim number or number of claims
- Indemnity loss amount
- Date of loss
All claims reported with Catastrophe Code No. 48 shall be excluded from merit rating calculations. All claims reported with Catastrophe Code No. 12 shall be excluded from merit rating calculations.
5. Moral Responsibility
No loss shall be excluded from the experience of a risk on the ground that the employer was not morally responsible for the accident that caused such loss.
6. Revision of Losses
It shall not be permissible to revise values because of department or judicial decision or because of developments in the nature of injury between two valuation dates. Provided, however, that
-
- in cases where loss values are included or excluded through mistake other than error of judgment
- where a claim is declared non-compensable (see note below)
- where the claimant or carrier has recovered in an action against a third party
- where a claim should have been reported with Catastrophe Code No. 48, or
- where a claim or a portion of a claim is ruled or officially declared fraudulent, or
- where a claim should have been reported with Catastrophe Code No. 12.
It shall be permissible to submit a revised reporting requesting adjustment of the affected Merit Rating Plan adjustment or adjustments, provided such request is made within 24 months of the expiration of the period to which the merit rating applied. If a case is expected to be open longer than 24 months upon written application, properly filed with the DCRB by the insured, a further extension of 24 months may be granted, provided such request is made within 24months of the expiration of the period to which the merit rating applied. Such application shall give notice to the DCRB that one of the allowable conditions (see above) for loss revision is still pending a final decision. In this event, the DCRB files for the risk involved will be preserved. Note: For purposes of this rule, the term “non-compensable” refers to:
-
- an official ruling specifically holding that a claim is not entitled to benefits under the provisions of the Delaware Workers’ Compensation Law.
- a case where no claim was filed during the period of limitation provided by the Delaware Workers’ Compensation Law for the filing of such claim and the carrier therefore closes the case.
- a case where the carrier contends prior to the evaluation date that a claimant is not entitled to benefits under the Delaware Workers’ Compensation Law and the claim is officially closed because of the claimant’s failure to prosecute his claim.