text:
The following is a list of Dr. Jeff Sutherland's published academic papers, journal articles, books, and letters. It includes his cancer research in the 1970s, his papers on database architecture in the 80s, and his numerous papers on Scrum and scaling Scrum over the last three decades. Much of Scrum and Scrum@Scale's structure was influenced by his experience with and lessons learned studying and researching biological systems, dynamic systems, and object oriented architectures. Jeff's body of work is vast and demonstrates his commitment to empirical process control and sharing his findings so that they may benefit the maximum number of people. Jeff's work continues to guide and inspires us.
Note: More recent publications may be missing from this list, it is a work in progress.
Sutherland, Jeff and van den Heuvel, Willem-Jan (2006) Towards an Intelligent Hospital Environment: Adaptive Workflow in the OR of the Future. In Sprague, Ralph (Ed) 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-39), IEEE Computer Society (in press).
Sutherland, Jeff (2005) Future of Scrum: Parallel Pipelining of Sprints in Complex Projects. Proceedings of the Agile 2005 Conference, IEEE Computer Society (in press).
Sutherland, J., W. J. Van den Heuvel, et al. (2005). RECIPE for REal-time proCess ImProvement in hEalthcare: Putting the Healthcare Enterprise on Autopilot. Future of Health Technology. R. Bushko. Cambridge, (In press).
Sutherland, Jeff (2004) Agile Development: Lessons Learned from the First Scrum. Cutter Agile Project Management Advisory Service: Executive Update 5(20): p. 1-4.
Sutherland, Jeff (2004) Wireless Do’s and Don’ts. Advance for Health Information Executives 8:7 ( 1 July), p26.
Sutherland, J. V. and T. J. Ganous (2004). Back To The (OR) Future: The Perioperative Systems Performance Acceleration Tool. Healthcare Information Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Annual Conference and Exhibition, Orlando, FL.
Minear, Michael and Sutherland, Jeff (2003) Medical Informatics—A Catalyst for Operating Room Transformation. Seminars in Laparoscopic Surgery 10:2 (June), pp 71-78.
Sutherland, Jeff and van den Heuvel, Willem-Jan (2002) Developing and integrating enterprise components and services: Enterprise application integration and complex adaptive systems. Communications of the ACM 45:10:59-64.
Sutherland, Jeff and van den Heuvel, Willem-Jan (2002) Enterprise Application Integration Encounters Complex Adaptive Systems: A Business Object Perspective. In Nunamaker, Jay and Sprague, Ralph (Eds) 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-35), IEEE Computer Society.
Stanford, Vince. Pervasive Health Care Applications Face Tough Security Challenges. IEEE Pervasive Computing, Apr-Jun 2002, pp. 1014. Details Sutherland’s work on PDA security for wireless applications.
Sutherland, Jeff (2001) Agile Can Scale: Inventing and Reinventing SCRUM in Five Companies. Cutter IT Journal 14:12:5-11.
Sutherland, Jeff (2001) Power to the PDA. Healthcare Informatics, July.
Sutherland, J (2001) Business Object and Component Architectures: Enterprise Application Integration Encounters Complex Adaptive Systems (invited paper). IEEE Hawaii International Conference on Software Systems.
Maamar, Zakaria and Sutherland, Jeff (2000) Toward Intelligent Business Objects: Focusing on Techniques to Enhance Business Objects that Exhibit Goal-Oriented Behaviors. Communications of the ACM 40:10:99-101.
Sutherland, Jeff (1999) The Emergence of a Business Object Component Architecture. In Patel , D., Sutherland, J., Miller, J. (Eds.) Business Object Design and Implementation III. London: Springer.
Beedle, Mike; Devos, Martine; Sharon, Yonat; Schwaber, Ken; Sutherland, Jeff (1999) SCRUM: An extension pattern language for hyperproductive software development. In Harrison, Neil; Foote, Brian; Ronhert, Hans (Eds.) Pattern Languages of Program Design 4. Addison-Wesley Software Patterns Series.
Sutherland, Jeff (1999) OOPSLA'98 Workshop Report: Business Object Design and Implementation IV: From Business Objects to Complex Adaptive Systems. 13th Annual Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications Addendum to the Proceedings. OOPS Messenger, ACM/SIGPLAN.
Sutherland, J. (1999). The Emergence of a Business Object Architecture. IEEE 8th International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, Palo Alto, IEEE.
Sutherland, J. and S. Alpert (1999). "Big Workflow" for Enterprise Applications. Business Object Design and Implementation III: OOPSLA '99 Workshop Proceedings. D. Patel, J. Sutherland and J. Miller. London, Springer-Verlag. III.
Sutherland, Jeff (1998) Business Objects and the Evolution of the Internet. In Zamir, Saba (Ed.) Handbook of Object Technology. CRC Press, 1998.
Sutherland, J (1998) Business object design and implementation IV: From business objects to complex adaptive systems: OOPSLA’98 workshop report. SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages. New York: ACM Press.
Sutherland, Jeff (1998) Distributed Object Computing: Healthcare Technology Futures. Distributed Computing 1:9:62-64.
Sutherland, Jeff (1998) Why I Love the OMG: The Emergence of a Business Object Component Architecture. ACM StandardView 6:1:4-13.
Sutherland, J (1997) Business object design and implementation III. In Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications: Addendum to the 1997 ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications. ACM Press, pp. 58-62.
Sutherland, J (1996) Roadkill on the information highway: JavaDay. OneMind Journal, Feb.
Rick Cattell , Frank Manola , Richard Soley , Jeff Sutherland , Mary Loomis (1995) Objects and database standards. ACM SIGPLAN Notices , Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications 30:10.
Sutherland, J (1995) Business object design and implementation workshop. Addendum to the proceedings of the 10th annual conference on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications. ACM SIGPLAN OOPS Messenger 6:4.
Sutherland, Jeff (1995) Business objects in corporate information systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 27:2:274 - 276.
Sutherland, Jeff (1995) Smalltalk, C++, and OO COBOL: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Object Magazine 5:2:32-35.
Sutherland, Jeff (1994) X3 Technical Committee X3H7 (OIM) SQL3 Object Model. Accredited Standards Committee, X3, Information Processing Systems. X3H7-93-046v3, 9 Apr 1994.
Sutherland JV, Pope M, Rugg K (1993) The Hybrid Object-Relational Architecture (HORA): An Integration of Object-Oriented and Relational Technology. In Applied Computing: States of the Art and Practice - 1993. Proceedings of the 1993 ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, Indianapolis, 14-16 February. Deaton E et al (Eds) ACM Press, pp 326-333.
Sutherland JV (1993) X3 Technical Committee X3H7 (OIM): The SQL3 Object Model. ANSI X3H7-93-046, 17 March.
Wiegner KK (1990) All the News that Fits. Forbes. April 30, 1990, pp 174-175. Article on Sutherland information filter system that launched a new company.
Scherzinger AL, Belgam RA, Carson PL, Meyer CR, Sutherland JV, Bookstein FL, Silver TM (1989) Assessment of ultrasonic computed tomography in symptomatic breast patients by discriminant analysis. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 15:1:21-28.
Sutherland JV (1984) Estimates of cancer risk associated with radiation exposure. In Health Effects of Low Level Radiation. Hendee WR (Ed) Norwalk: Appleton-Century-Crofts, pp 93-117.
Hammond KR, Anderson BF, Sutherland JV, Marvin B (1984) Improving scientists' judgments of risk. Journal of Risk Analysis 4:69-78.
Sutherland JV, Bailar JC III (1984) The multihit model of carcinogenesis: Etiologic implications for colon cancer. Journal of Chronic Diseases 37:465-480.
Waldren C, Martin J, Sutherland J, Cram S (1984) Use of somatic cell hybrids for quantitation of mutagenesis: Reduction in background mutants by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS). Cytometry 5:584-588.
Sutherland JV (1983) Case analysis: Health hazards of plutonium release from the Rocky Flats Plant. In Health Effects of Low Level Radiation. Hendee WR (Ed) Norwalk: Appleton-Century-Crofts, pp 213-232.
Sutherland JV (1983) Theoretical epidemiology in Health Physics: Estimation of the risk of radiation-induced breast cancer. In Epidemiology Applied to Health Physics. Wilkinson G (Ed) National Technical Information Service, CONF-830101, pp 143-152.
Thomas MR, Robinson WA, Glode LM, Koppler H, Dantas ME, Morton N, Sutherland JV (1983) Treatment of advanced malignant melanoma with high dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation: Preliminary results-Phase I study. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982 Dec;5(6):611-22.
Bolin RW, Robinson WA, Sutherland J, Hamman RF (1982) Busulfan vs hydroxyurea in long term therapy of chronic myelogenous leukemia. Cancer 50:15-18.
Sutherland JV (1982) Estimation of lung cancer risk from environmental exposure to airborne plutonium from the Rocky Flats Plant. In Current Concepts in Lung Dosimetry. Fisher DR (Ed) Washington, D.C.: Technical Information Center, U.S. Dept. of Energy, PNL-SA-11049, pp 157-167.
Silverberg SG, Mullen D, Faraci JA, Makowski EL, Miller A, Finch JL, Sutherland JV (1980) Endometrial carcinoma: Clinical-pathologic comparison of cases in postmenopausal women receiving and not receiving exogenous estrogens. Cancer 45:3018-3026.
Sutherland JV, Bailar JC III (1979) Multihit models: Assumptions and generalizations. In Advances in Medical Oncology Research and Education I: Carcinogenesis. Margison GP (Ed) Oxford: Permagon Press, pp 309-313.
Katchadourian HA, Sutherland JV (1975) Affective psychoses in Lebanon. Lebanese Medical Journal 28:159-167.
Katchadourian HA, Sutherland JV (1975) Organic brain syndromes in Lebanon. Lebanese Medical Journal 28:133-141.
Katchadourian HA, Sutherland JV (1975) Neurotic disorders in Lebanon. Lebanese Medical Journal 28:268-280.
Katchadourian HA, Sutherland JV (1975) Personality disorders in Lebanon. Lebanese Medical Journal 28:281-288.
Katchadourian HA, Sutherland JV (1975) Psychiatric aspects of drug addiction in Lebanon. International Journal of the Addictions 10:949-962.
Katchadourian HA, Sutherland JV (1975) Schizophrenic disorders in Lebanon. Lebanese Medical Journal 28:143-158.
Sutherland, J. Sutherland, J Jr., (2014) Scrum: The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time. New York: Penguin.
Schwaber, K. Sutherland, J., (2012) Software in 30 Days. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Sutherland, J., Solingen, R. (2011) The Power of Scrum. North Charleston: CreateSpace.
Patel , D., Sutherland, J., Miller, J., (Eds.) (1999) Business Object Design and Implementation III. New York and London: Springer.
Patel , D., Sutherland, J., Miller, J., (Eds.) (1998) Business Object Design and Implementation II. New York and London: Springer.
Sutherland, J.V. , Patel, D., Casanave, C., Miller, J., Hollowell, G., (Eds.) (1997) Business Object Design and Implementation. New York and London: Springer.
Sutherland, J.V. RHIO: Beyond the Buzz – Making Them Work. in EHR Summit VI. 2005. Indianapolis: Medical Records Institute.
Sutherland, J.V. Extending Secure and Auditable Encryption Standards to Mobile Computing. in 21st Annual Conference and Exhibition. 2005. Salt Lake City: Medical Records Institute.
Sutherland, J.V. Making Wireless Work: Getting the Most out of Your Wireless Infrastructure. in 21st Annual TEPR Conference and Exhibition. 2005. Salt Lake City: Medical Records Institute.
Sutherland, J.V. Integrating the Patient Care Continuum: Instant Access to Inpatient and Outpatient Medical Records from Multiple Institutions. in EHR Summit V. 2005. New York: Medical Records Institute.
Sutherland, J.V. RECIPE for REal time proCess ImProvement in hEalthcare. in Future of Health Technology Summit. 2004. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Sutherland, J.V. (2004) The RECIPE for Real-Time Process Improvement in Healthcare. The 13th Annual PHYSICIAN-COMPUTER CONNECTION Symposium, Association of Medical Directors of Information Systems (AMDIS). San Diego, July 14-16.
Sutherland, J.V. (2004) Teleheath Futures: Emerging Technologies. Future Directions for Telemedicine: An International Symposium on Program Evaluation Strategies and Techniques, Emerging Technologies, and Interoperability. University of Michigan, May 22.
Sutherland, J.V. (2004) Enhancing Physician Adoption with the PatientKeeper Platform Architecture. TEPR Conference and Exhibition, May 20, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Sutherland, J.V. (2004) Using Technology as a Tool to Change Hospital Workflow. TEPR Conference and Exhibition, May 20, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Sutherland, J.V. (2003) Advances in Mobile Computing: Disease Management. Automating Order Entry in Outpatient and Inpatient Settings, TEPR Conference and Exhibition, May 12, San Antonio, TX.
Sutherland, J.V. (2003) Reducing Medical Errors. Automating Order Entry in Outpatient and Inpatient Settings. TEPR Conference and Exhibition, May 12, San Antonio, TX.
Sutherland, J.V. (2003) Operating Room of the Future: Medical Informatics and Perioperative Systems Design. Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center (TATRC) Technology Advances in Research Portfolios: Operating Room of the Future and Medical Modeling & Simulation. 11th Annual Medicine Meets Virtual Reality Conference, 22 Jan, Newport Beach, CA.
Sutherland, J.V. (2002) Keynote Address: An Open and Secure Mobile Platform for Healthcare Patient Safety Initiatives. National Institute of Standards Pervasive Computing Conference PC2002, October 1-2, Gaithersburg, MD.
Sutherland, J.V. (2002) Advances in Mobile Computing: The Key to On-going Learning for Healthcare Professionals and Patients. Future of Health Technology Summit, MIT Media Laboratory, 29 Oct.
Sutherland, J.V. (2001) Digital Medicine: Future of Home Telecare. Future of Health Technology Summit, MIT Media Laboratory, 25 Sep.
Sutherland, J.V. (2000) Automation at the Point of Care: Enterprise Decision Support and Workflow. Future of Health Technology Summit, MIT Media Laboratory, 25 Sep.
Sutherland, J.V. (1999) "Big Workflow" for Enterprise Systems. Implementation and Application of Object-Oriented Workflow Management Systems II. OOPSLA ’99 Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications. Nov 1-5, Denver, CO.
Sutherland, J.V. (1999) Future of Medical Computing: Intelligent Objects. Future of Health Technology Summit, MIT Media Laboratory, 27 Sep.
Sutherland, J. V. and J. Foy (1999). Medical Care Quality Enhancers: Objects, Components, and the Web. Testimony to National Committee on Vital And Health Statistics, Washington, D.C.
Sutherland, J.V. (1998) Business Object Component Architectures: A Target Application Area for Complex Adaptive Systems Research. Modeling Dynamic/Emergent Distributed Object Systems, OOPSLA’98 Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications. October 18-22, Vancouver.
Sutherland, J. V. (1998) Improving Risk Management With Information Technologies. Future of Health Technology Summit, MIT Media Laboratory, 26 Sep.
Sutherland, J. (1998). Tutorial: Objects, Databases, and the World Wide Web. COMDEX/Object World, San Francisco, COMDEX.
Sutherland, J.V. (1996) Objects, Databases, and the World Wide Web. Comdex/PacRim ’96, Vancouver, January.
Sutherland, J.V. (1995) The Object Technology Architecture: Business Objects for Corporate Information Systems. VMARK Symposium, November 5-8, Albuquerque.
Sutherland, J.V. (1995) A Business Object Architecture for Corporate Information Systems. Object World, Boston, Sydney, San Francisco, Frankfurt, Tokyo and Executive Symposium on Object Technology, Toronto.
Sutherland, J.V. (1995) An Executive Overview to Object Technology (tutorial). Object World, Boston, Sydney, San Francisco, Frankfurt and Executive Symposium on Object Technology, Toronto.
Sutherland, J.V. (1994) Object-Oriented Architecture for MIS. Object World, San Francisco, 25-29 July.
Sutherland, J.V. (1994) Design, Assembly, and Reuse Through Business Objects. GUIDE Summer ‘94, New York, 10-14 July.
Sutherland, J.V. (1994) Bridging Client/Server and Object Technology. Open Client/Server Computing 5th Annual Executive Symposium and Showcase, Toronto, 24-26 May.
Sutherland, J.V. (1994) Object-Oriented Client Server: Turning Enterprise Data Into Business Objects. Software World, Toronto, 8 March.
Sutherland, J.V. (1994) Object-Oriented Analysis and Design: Shlaer-Mellor and Rumbaugh Methodologies and New Directions. Andersen Consulting Object Week, St. Charles, IL, 21 Jan.
Sutherland, J.V. (1994) From Data Management to Object Management, Version 2. Object World, Boston, 13 Jan.
Sutherland, J.V. (1994) Capturing Object-Oriented Benefits: A Banking System Case Study. Object World, Boston, 11 Jan.
Sutherland, J. V. (1994). Reduced Instruction Object Semantics: An Open Systems Data Model for Object Databases. XHIBITION'92, San Jose, Integrated Computer Solutions, Inc.
Sutherland, J.V. (1993) Relational DBMS versus Object DBMS - The Transition from Data Management to Object Management. Executive Symposium on Object Technology, Toronto, 21 September.
Sutherland, J.V. (1993) Integrating Open Systems Applications with Object Databases. Xhibition '93, San Jose, June.
Sutherland, J.V. (1993) Object Databases and OSI/ANSI Standards. Object Expo, New York, April.
Sutherland, J.V. (1993) From Data Management to Object Management. Object World, Boston (April) and San Francisco (June).
Sutherland, J.V. (1992) Reduced Instruction Object Semantics (RIOS): An Open Systems Data Model for Object Databases. Xhibition '92, San Jose (June).
Sutherland, J.V. (1991) DAISI: Online Management of Chemical Plant Operating Modes. SCOOP EAST. East Rutherford, NJ, June 24-28.
Sutherland, J.V. (1991) Capturing Object-Oriented Benefits: Guiness Peat Aviation Case Study. Object World, San Francisco, June 3-7.
Sutherland, J.V. (1991) Case Study: Capturing Object-Oriented Benefits in Development of Online Transaction Processing Applications. SCOOP WEST, San Jose, March 11-14.
Sutherland, J.V. (1991) Taking the First Steps toward Implementing Object-Based Applications: Capturing Object-Oriented Benefits at Guiness Peat Aviation. Patricia Seybold's Fifth Annual Technology Forum, Cambridge, April 9-11.
Sutherland, J.V. (1990) Performance Issues and Comparative Benchmarks: Object-Oriented, Hierarchical, and Relational Database Systems. Patricia Seybold's Fourth Annual Technology Forum, Cambridge, April 2-4.
Sutherland, J.V. (1989) Tutorial on Database Evolution: Network, Relational, and Object-Oriented Database Systems. In OOPSLA '89 Proceedings, New Orleans, October 1-6, 1989. New York: ACM, pp 499-500.
Sutherland, J.V. (1989) Is a Persistent Object Store a Database? In OOPSLA '89 Proceedings, New Orleans, October 1-6, 1989. New York: ACM, pp 499-500.
Sutherland, J.V. (1989) Tutorial on Using Object Database Management. SCOOP - First Annual Seminars and Conference on Object-Oriented Programming. Wang Institute of Boston University, June 12-14.
Sutherland JV (1983) Theoretical epidemiology applied to Health Physics: Estimation of the risk of radiation-induced breast cancer. Sixteenth Midyear Topical Symposium of the Health Physics Society, Epidemiology Applied to Health Physics.
Sutherland JV (1982) Estimation of lung cancer risk from environmental exposure to airborne plutonium from the Rocky Flats Plant. 30th Annual Meeting of the Radiation Research Society (Workshop on Lung Dosimetry), p 128.
Sutherland JV (1982) The use of judgment analysis in estimation of health hazards of plutonium emissions from the Rocky Flats Plant. Rocky Mountain Region Conference on Medical Applications of Statistics, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center.
Sutherland JV (1982) Applications in theoretical epidemiology: Estimation of the risk of radiation-induced breast cancer. 2nd Annual Epidemiological Research Exchange, Colorado Department of Health, Colorado State University, and University of Colorado Health Sciences Center.
Sutherland JV, Bailar JC III, Perry G (1982) A case study in theoretical epidemiology: Utilization of the Sutherland/Bailar multihit model of carcinogenesis for analysis of Connecticut colon cancer incidence data, 1935-1974. Proceedings of the 13th International Cancer Congress, Seattle.
Kaur J, Robinson WA, Sutherland JV (1982) A case control study of risk factors for human malignant melanoma. Proceedings of the 13th International Cancer Congress, Seattle.
Sutherland JV, Bailar JC III (1980) The multihit model of carcinogenesis: Evaluation of temporal trends in cancer incidence data from Third National Cancer Survey. Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research 21:81.
Sutherland JV, Bailar JC III (1979) Multihit models: Assumptions and generalizations. In Advances in Medical Oncology Research and Education XII: Abstracts. Margison GP (Ed) Oxford: Permagon Press, p 559.
Sutherland JV, Bailar JC III (1979) The multihit model of carcinogenesis: Application to colon cancer data from the Third National Cancer Survey. Proceedings of the of the American Association for Cancer Research 20:77.
Sutherland, J. V. and G. Madrid (2004). PatientKeeper Platform Extends Secure and Auditable Encryption Standards to Mobile Computing. PatientKeeper Technical White Papers. Brighton, MA.
Sutherland, J. and J. McKenna (1993). Ensembles: Structuring Object Components. Easel Corporation Technical Reports. Burlington, MA.
Sutherland, J. V. (1992). A Survey of Tools for Object Technology. Object Databases Technical Reports. J. V. Sutherland. Cambridge, MA.
Sutherland, JV (1990) Critical Requirements for Production Object Database Systems. Cambridge: Object Databases.
Sutherland JV, LeNoan Y, Nguyen D, Rugg K (1990) Data Fusion in Heterogenous Database Systems: Mapping a Common Object Metaphor to an SQL Database. Cambridge: Object Databases.
Sutherland AC, Sutherland JV (1989) A Survey of All Unitarian-Universalist Ministers Accepting in Preliminary Fellowship 1982-1989. Boston: Unitarian-Universalist Association.
Sutherland JV, Murphy M, Sutherland AV (1988) dbX Monograph: An Overview of the First High Performance Commercial Object-Oriented Database System. Cambridge: The Saddlebrook Corporation.
Sutherland, J.V. (1987) Saddlebrook Distributed Network Architecture in a Digital/DECNET Multiple Cluster Environment. Cambridge: The Saddlebrook Corporation.
Sutherland JV (1987) Diffusion of Technology: The Birth of the Knowledgebase. Shumpeter Society Awards Competition.
Hammond KR, Anderson BF, Sutherland JV, Marvin B (1983) Improving Scientists' Judgments of Risk. A Joint Report of the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the Center for Research on Judgment and Policy (Report No. 239).
Anderson BF, Hammond KR, Berg J, Hamman R, Johnson C, Marine W, Sutherland J (1981) Second Report to the Rocky Flats Monitoring Committee Concerning Scientists' Judgement of Cancer Risk. A Joint Report of the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the Center for Research on Judgment and Policy (Report No. 233).
Sutherland JV (1980) The Multihit Model of Carcinogenesis and Its Application to Human Colon Cancer Incidence Data. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Biometrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine.
Berg JW, Sutherland JV, Finch J (1977) Cancer incidence in Colorado. Technical Report No 77-2, Department of Biometrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine.
Sutherland, J (2001) Homeopathic “trials”. Comment on Morag A Taylor, David Reilly, Robert H Llewellyn-Jones, Charles McSharry, Tom C Aitchison, Tim Lancaster, and Andrew Vickers: Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 19 Dec 2001.
Sutherland JV (1991) Object Orientations. Byte 16(January):33.
Sutherland JV (1988) The Zen of Plauger. Computer Language 5(April):10.
Sutherland JV (1987) Software tools modified. Computer Language 4(July):9.
Sutherland JV (1980) Comments on Manton et al: A stochastic compartment model of stomach cancer with correlated waiting time distributions. International Journal of Epidemiology 9:288.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


text:
We take data protection very seriously. This is why the collection of personal data occurs exclusively within the framework of the statutory provisions.
Personal data refers to all information regarding an identified or identifiable natural person. This includes information such as name, address or telephone number. Information that cannot be associated with a specified or specifiable natural person – e.g. favourite websites or the number of users of a website – does not represent personal data.
The protection of personal data is of great importance to us. All employees of Johann Eberhard Ges.m.b.H. have undertaken to observe data secrecy. Within the scope of technical and organisational measures, we do everything we can to protect personal data from loss and misuse.
Your data are processed for the purpose of the performance of orders issued to us by you or your company and orders issued to your company by us. The legal basis for this is the fulfilment of the contract concluded with you or your company (Art. 6 Para. 1 Item b GDPR). If you have granted us consent to process your personal data for specific purposes, the legality of the processing is based on your consent (Art. 6 Para. 1 Item a GDPR). Consent granted by you may be revoked at any time. However, please note that the revocation shall only take effect in the future. Therefore, processing operations carried out before the revocation are not affected thereby. Insofar as we are obliged to fulfil legal provisions, the legal basis for this is Art. 6 Para. 1 Item c GDPR. In individual cases, the legality of the processing may also be the result of a weighing-up of interests (Art. 6 Para. 1 Item f GDPR).
Within our company, your data is received by the employees involved in the respective order. Further recipients may be processors employed by us (e.g. IT administrators) as well as tax consultants and, if necessary, the tax authorities.
Transmission of your data to third countries does not take place unless the contract includes this or there is a legal obligation to do so.
We process and store your personal data for the duration of our business relationship with you i.e. for the duration of the legally stipulated obligations of retention and documentation.
As a data subject, you have a right to request information pursuant to Art. 15 GDPR, a right to rectification pursuant to Art. 16 GDPR, a right to deletion pursuant to Art. 17 GDPR, a right to restriction of the processing pursuant to Art. 18 GDPR as well as a right to data portability pursuant to Art. 20 GDPR.
In the context of the existing or prospective business relationship, you are only required to provide the personal data necessary for the performance of orders issued or for the transaction of concluded contracts, or the data that we are legally obliged to collect.
If we intend to process your data for a purpose other than that for which the data were collected, we will inform you thereof in good time and will provide you with further information regarding this purpose.
For reasons arising from your particular situation, you have the right to file an objection at any time to the processing of personal data concerning you that takes place based on Art. 6 Para. 1 item e GDPR (data processing in the public interest) or Art. 6 Para. 1 Item f GDPR (data processing due to legitimate interests). If you file an objection, we will no longer process your personal data unless we are able to demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds for the processing that outweigh your interests, rights and freedoms, or unless the processing serves to exercise, assert or defend legal claims. If you object to processing for purposes of direct advertising, we will no longer process your personal data for these purposes.
This website uses Google Analytics, a web analytics service provided by Google Inc. (“Google”). Google Analytics uses so-called “cookies”, text files that are stored on your computer and that allow an analysis of the use of the website by you. The information generated by the cookie about your use of this website (including your IP address) is transmitted to a Google server in the USA and stored there. Google will use this information to evaluate your use of the website, to compile reports on website activity for the website operators and to provide other services related to website activity and internet usage. Google may also transmit this information to third parties if legally required or if third parties process these data on behalf of Google. Under no circumstances will Google associate your IP address with other Google data. You can prevent the installation of cookies by setting your browser software accordingly; however, please note that if you do this, you may not be able to use all the features of this website to the fullest extent possible. By using this website, you agree to the processing of the data collected by Google regarding you in the previously described manner and for the previously described purpose.
On this website, the Google Analytics code has been extended with “ga('set', 'anonymizeIp', true);”. This ensures that the collection of IP addresses is anonymised (so-called IP masking).

matches:
Art. 6
Art. 15
Art. 16
Art. 17
Art. 18
Art. 20
Art. 6
Art. 6


§15-8 is a section of the NYS WC law relating to disability following previous permanent physical impairment. §15-8 no longer applies for loss dates after June 30, 2007. See Second Injury Fund definition.
§25-A is a section of the NYS WC law that applies to cases closed (NFA), in which the date of accident is more than seven (7) years ago, and in which the date of the last indemnity payment is more than three (3) years ago. If the WCB establishes 25-A, then medical and indemnity payments will be made by Special Funds Conservation Committee, and not the employer or insurance carrier.
An “A-Rated Classification” is a classification with no predefined manual rate shown in the rate pages of the NYCIRB Manual.
Refers to either (a) the date the accident is deemed to have occurred or (b) the date of onset assigned to an occupational disease. The accident date is officially established by a WCLJ.
The finding made by a WCLJ that certain conditions have been met to assign financial responsibility for a claim. Specifically, it must be established that (a) a work-related accident covered by the Workers' Compensation Law has occurred; (b) following the accident, the claimant notified her/his employer within the time limit required by the Workers' Compensation Law; and (c) a causal relationship exists between the accident and the resulting injury or disability.
A person who calculates insurance and annuity premiums, reserves and dividends.
The Workers' Compensation Board WCLJ can put off or suspend until a future time, without making any findings.
A premium level charged a risk under a NYSIF workers' compensation policy, produced by applying an experience modification to the manual rate premium on either a deposit premium bill or an audit bill.
In an effort to reserve the hearing calendar process for more complex cases, the WCB can make determinations on cases outside of the regular hearing process by administrative decisions.
The New York State Workers' Compensation Board Advocate for Business assists employers by resolving problems and answering questions about the New York State workers' compensation system.
The New York State Workers' Compensation Board Advocate for Injured Workers accepts complaints related to workers' compensation, and investigates and attempts to resolve them. In addition, the Advocate provides information to injured workers to enable them to protect their rights in the workers' compensation system.
A written statement under oath or affirmation made or taken before an officer having authority to administer such oath.
A trust fund established via NYS WC law § 27, entrusting NYSIF as the administrator for the Trust to assure payment of workers’ compensation in claims involving permanent partial disability, permanent total disability, the loss of major members (limbs or eyes) and fatal injuries.
The date each year upon which a policy is renewed; usually based on the original inception date.
A legal action taken by one of the parties to reverse or amend a decision or direction made by a WCLJ, WCB board panel or the WCB Chair.
Application Tracking Number is the 10-digit number generated when a new business application is entered in the system. If approved, the ATN (with the last two digits removed) becomes the 8-digit policy number.
A proportionate division of all or part of the benefit costs in a case between two or more injury claims for the same claimant, based on an evaluation of the relative contribution that the injuries have made to the claimant's permanent disability.Apportionment can involve another NYSIF case, another carrier’s case, or a prior existing medical condition of the claimant.
The adjudication process that determines the fair value of a disputed medical bill rendered by a physician, chiropractor, physical therapist, occupational therapist, podiatrist, or psychologist authorized to render treatment under the WC law.
Two necessary conditions that must be met to establish a work-connected accidental injury. An injury that "arises out of" is one that results from a hazard of the employment, while an injury "in the course of employment" is one that occurred at a time, place, and under circumstances related to the employment.
The transfer of an insurance policy from one person or entity to another.
The act of inspecting the accounting books, electronic accounts and tax records of a policyholder to determine the actual exposures, which existed during a specified period of time, in order to develop the proper premium.
New York State licensed chiropractor authorized by the WCB Chair to render chiropractic care under the WC law within the limits prescribed by the Education Law.
New York State licensed psychologist authorized by the WCB Chair to render psychological care under the WC law within the limits prescribed by the Education Law.
An individual or company whom the assured or applicant selects (in writing) to act as that assured's agent. Some common examples of an authorized representative are an insurance broker, an insurance agent, an attorney and an accountant. When the assured is in a Safety Group, the Group Manager automatically becomes the assured's representative.
Decision given by a WCLJ at a hearing to pay or not pay compensation and/or medical expenses to a claimant.
An agreement to furnish protection until an insurance policy can be issued. NYSIF does not use binders for workers' compensation coverage.
Where a Workers' Compensation Law Judge’s decision is disputed, the aggrieved party may file an application for a review. A panel, usually comprised of three Workers' Compensation Board members (at least one of whom must be a lawyer), reviews these requests to amend decisions made by Workers' Compensation Law Judges.
The act of terminating an insurance policy before its expiration date, either by the policyholder or by the company.
A unique identifier assigned by the insurance company at the time a workers' compensation case is created for a work-related injury or illness. On correspondence from NYSIF, this number will be identified as the NYSIF Claim Number. This number is different than the WCB case number.
Workers' Compensation Board definition: Object, substance or condition that directly contributed to the occurrence of an accident.
A document that provides evidence of the existence and terms of a particular policy.
Safety and health staff designated as New York State Certified Safety Consultants (CSC) by the New York State Department of Labor. This credential can be used only by those persons who have qualified for and been issued a verification under the Workplace Safety and Loss Prevention Program (Industrial Code Rule 59, NYS Workers’ Compensation Law).
A demand for an amount alleged to be due under an insurance policy following the occurrence or event against which the coverage protects.
A system of insurance risk classification based on industrial or occupational categories.
A WCB process established to resolve, in an expeditious and informal manner (e.g. through meeting or telephone conferences), issues involving non-contested claims in which the expected duration of benefits is 52 weeks or less. Each claim that is filed shall be reviewed for possible transfer for conciliation. Failure to reach an agreement through the conciliation process results in the case being scheduled for a hearing.
If a claimant has more than one job, the compensation rate is calculated by adding the wages from all of the claimant’s jobs.
A second accident resulting from a prior accidental injury which arose out of and in the course of employment,e.g., a claimant who falls down a flight of stairs at home while using crutches because of a leg injury incurred at work.
Completion of a hearing on a case without closing the case, leaving additional matters to be resolved at a future hearing.
The CPT is a uniform coding system consisting of descriptive terms and identifying codes that are used primarily to identify medical services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health care professionals.
Awarded by the WCB when the death of a claimant is causally related to the accident that initiated the claim. Benefits are payable in order of priority to: surviving spouse, then children, then all others with equal priority such as dependent parents, grandparents, grandchildren, brothers and sisters. Dependency is determined as of the date of the accident.
Claimant died as a result of a work-related injury.
This term refers to a debtor that keeps possession and control of its assets while undergoing a reorganization under chapter 11 of U. S. Bankruptcy Code, without the appointment of a case trustee.
Determination arrived at after consideration by the WCB.
A document issued by an insurance company on a new policy which contains specific information identifying the insured and the coverage afforded. Also known as a New Information Page.
A policy provision that requires an insurer to only pay that amount of any loss which is in excess of a specified amount.
The compensation and medical benefits payable after the carrier has exhausted its credit against the claimant's net third party recovery.
The New York State Department of Financial Services is responsible for supervising and regulating all insurance business in New York State.
A legally and properly organized network of providers or facilities that perform diagnostic tests, x-ray examinations, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or other radiological tests for claimants.
A premium rate charged by NYSIF that is greater than the sum of the loss cost in effect for the classification of employees and the applicable expense factor used by NYSIF.
New York State disability benefits insurance provides temporary cash benefits paid to an eligible wage earner when he/she is disabled by an off the job illness or injury, and for disabilities arising from pregnancies. Employers with one or more employees are subject to the provisions of the New York State Disability Benefits Law. The Disability Benefits Law provides weekly cash benefits to replace, in part, wages lost due to illness or injury that do not arise out of or in the course of employment. Disability benefits include cash payments only. Medical care is the responsibility of the claimant. Medical care is not paid for by the employer or insurance carrier.
NYSIF statutory disability insurance claim benefits equal ½ the average weekly wage of the employee, up to a maximum weekly claim benefit of $170, for 26 weeks (if required) within a 52-week period.
NYSIF enriched disability benefits insurance claim benefits equal ½ the average weekly wage of the employee at the maximum weekly claim benefit determined by the policyholders annual selection of coverage, for 26 weeks (if required) within a 52-week period.
Disability benefits insurance rates are determined by each insurer. These rates must be filed and approved by the New York State Insurance Department. The NYSIF statutory disability benefits premium rate for a standard risk policyholder is calculated at $.14 per person, applicable to each $100 of covered payroll limited to a maximum payroll of $340 per person, per week. NYSIF Standard Rates may be increased by a premium modification based upon the annual cost of claims.
Serious and permanent disfigurement to the face, head or neck may entitle the injured worker to compensation up to a maximum of $20,000, depending upon the date of the accident.
A portion of the premium which may be distributed to a Disability Policyholder or Safety Group policyholder.
The date coverage begins on a policy.
Employer’s First Report of Injury.
The responsibility of an employer to reimburse an injured employee for accidents occurring in the course of employment. Such liability is separate from and is in addition to any statutory liability created under Workers' Compensation Law. Employer's liability is usually insured by a separate section (1B) under a workers' compensation policy.
A form attached to a policy in order to modify its terms.
Enriched disability benefits insurance offers policyholders claim benefits that exceed the New York Statutory Disability Benefits claim rate of $170 per week in partial wage replacement for off-the-job injury or illness. NYSIF enriched disability benefits insurance is offered to policyholders who request in writing to increase the level of claim benefits annually, upon renewal, or at the time of application for a new policy. Policyholders may annually choose a greater maximum weekly claim benefit for their employees at incremental levels that exceed the statutory claim benefit.
Enriched disability benefits insurance rates must be filed and approved by the New York State Insurance Department. NYSIF enriched disability benefits premium for a standard risk policyholder is calculated at $.14 per person, applicable to each $100 of covered payroll limited to a maximum payroll of $340 per person, per week, times the selection of coverage chosen by the policyholder. NYSIF standard rates may be increased by a premium modification based upon the cost of claims.
A person, partnership, corporation or political subdivision that can be shown as a named insured in a policy. A legal entity can be served with legal notice and sued in a court of law.
Within the context of a NYSIF safety group, it is a monetary amount above which the remaining cost of a claim is paid by reinsurance or the NYSIF and is not deducted as a loss against a safety group’s contingent balance or surplus.
A provision in an insurance policy that indicates what is denied coverage under that policy.
A corporate president, vice-president, secretary or treasurer appointed in accordance with the charter or by-laws of such corporation.
A policy fee charged on every WC policy, regardless of premium size, to compensate for the basic costs of administering the policy.
The record of losses that is used in predicting future losses and in developing premium rates.
A percentage higher than or less than 100% by which the Manual Rate Premium is increased (experience rate charge) or decreased (experience rate credit) when a risk is eligible for the Experience Rating Plan.
A form of individual risk rating which takes into consideration the loss experience of the particular risk as a credit or a debit to the manual rate for the employer’s classification.
An itemization of services provided, amount billed, and amount paid for each claimant represented in a payment to a medical provider.
Any person who, knowingly and with intent to defraud, presents causes to be presented, or prepares with knowledge or belief that it will be presented to or by an insurer or purported insurer, or any agent thereof, any written statement as part of or in support of, an application for the issuance of or the rating of an insurance policy for compensation insurance or a claim for payment or other benefit pursuant to a compensation policy which he or she knows to (i) contain a materially false statement or representation concerning any fact material thereto, or (ii) omits any fact material thereto, shall be guilty of a class E felony.
An acronym used in the insurance industry for First Report of Injury. See NYSIF eFROI.
Type of medical exam which helps to verify and determine a claimant's physical capacity.
A fund created under the WC law to assume liability for claims of compensation in certain “stale” cases where specified time limits have elapsed.
An individual or business firm who contracted to perform all or part of a specified job.
Coverage for an insured when negligent acts and/or omissions result in bodily injury and/or property damage to a third party.
The classification which describes the operations of the employer and produces the greatest amount of payroll.
A premium charged on a prospective basis, fixed or adjustable, or on a specified rating basis, but never on the basis of loss experience. In other words, the cost is guaranteed to the extent that it will not be adjusted based on the loss experience of the insured during the period of coverage. Contrast with Retrospective Rating.
HCPCS is a standardized coding system that is used primarily to identify products, supplies, and services not included in the CPT codes, such as ambulance services and durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies.
Locations where the WCB holds hearings.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. A law enacted by Congress requiring the U.S. Health and Human Services Department to adopt standards for transmission of information between parties while carrying out financial or administrative activities related to health care. These standards also must address security of protected health information.
Independent medical examination means an examination performed by an authorized or qualified independent medical examiner for purposes of evaluating or providing an opinion with respect to schedule loss, degree of disability, validation of treatment plan or diagnosis, causal relationship, diagnosis or treatment of disability, maximum medical improvement, ability to return to work, permanency, appropriateness of treatment, necessity of treatment, proper treatment, extent of disability, second opinion or any other purpose recognized or requested by the Board.
The date on which coverage takes effect.
The total anticipated ultimate cost of a claim. The incurred cost is the sum of all past payments and a reserve for all future payments.
The act of providing restitution for a loss or claim that has been discharged or paid by another liable party.
Compensation paid to the Workers' Compensation claimants for lost time resulting from an injury or illness.
One who undertakes to do a specific job and retains control of the means, method and manner of performance.
A document issued by an insurance company on a new policy which contains specific information identifying the insured and the coverage afforded. Also known as the Declaration page.
A contractual arrangement under which one party agrees to indemnify another against loss or damage from an unknown event for a certain sum called a premium.
An insurance agent represents the insurance company and can enter into contractual obligations on the insurance company's behalf. NYSIF does not have insurance agents.
An insurance broker is someone licensed to represent an insurance applicant in the negotiating for insurance. Also see Authorized Representative.
The person or entity to be indemnified by the insurer in the event of a covered loss or damage. Also "policyholder."
A condition where two or more persons or legal entities are jointly and severally responsible for an obligation.
Two or more employers (usually contractors) who associate and collaborate for the purpose of undertaking one or more projects. The projects under taken by a Joint Venture are usually of a limited duration with specified objective(s).
The WCB has jurisdiction over cases with employment in New York State. Notable exclusions from WCB jurisdiction in NYS include: federal government workers and certain employees of local government. Workers covered by separate compensation systems under federal laws (maritime employment, merchant seafarers, interstate railroad employees, etc.) may elect to submit to NYS jurisdiction by waiving their federal rights and remedies.
An obligation imposed by law or equity.
The maximum monetary sum payable under an insurance policy.
The portion of a premium rate that represents the anticipated costs of claims and associated loss adjustment expenses, including one or more trend factors, but which does not include provisions for insurer-specific expenses such as acquisition costs, overhead and taxes, or profit. Loss costs are based on loss data provided by all workers’ compensation insurers and are filed by the rate service organization for workers’ compensation (the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board) with the New York State Department of Financial Services.
The portion of the premium rate not included in the loss costs filed by the rate service organization for workers’ compensation (the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board), which includes insurer-specific expenses such as acquisition costs, overhead, taxes and profit.
The losses incurred expressed as a percentage of earned premium.
Funds set aside for the payment of losses which have been incurred, but are not yet due.
This is the time lost from work directly related to a workers’ compensation claim. A claimant is not entitled to lost time wages (Indemnity Benefits) until after the statutory waiting period of seven (7) days.
A negotiated and WCB-approved agreement, termed a "non-schedule adjustment," between a claimant with a non-schedule permanent partial disability and the claim defendant(s). As a result of the agreement the claimant receives a sum of money representing all future compensation for her/his disability, and the case is considered closed. Under WCL§15(5-b), granting of a settlement by the Board requires that (a) the right to compensation has been established and compensation has been paid for at least three months; (b) the continuance of disability and of future earning capacity cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty; (c) there has been a physical examination of the claimant prior to approval; and (d) the Board considers the settlement "fair and in the best interest of the claimant."
An assessed condition of a claimant based on medical judgment that (a) the claimant has recovered from the work-related injury to the greatest extent that is expected, and (b) no further change in her/his condition is expected. A finding of maximum medical improvement is a normal precondition for determining the permanent disability level of a claimant.
Medical treatment provided, under the WC law, to injured workers as a result of injuries arising out of and in the course of employment.
Care (other than first aid) administered by a physician, chiropractor or podiatrist or on a physician's referral, by a psychologist, or physical or occupational therapist.
The least amount required in order for a policy to be issued.
The Motion Calendar has been replaced by the Administrative Decision process. A Motion Calendar case was previously a case with no controversy or outstanding issue.
Multi-factor authentication adds a layer of protection against unauthorized access to your account by asking for information only you know or possess in addition to your username and password.
The person or entity named in a policy as being protected by such policy.
The National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., manages the nation’s largest database of workers' compensation insurance information. NCCI analyzes industry trends, prepares workers' compensation insurance rate recommendations, determines the cost of proposed legislation, and provides a variety of services and tools to maintain a healthy workers' compensation system.
The National Drug Code (NDC) is a unique code that identifies the vendor (manufacturer), product and package size of a drug recognized by the Food and Drug Administration.
An agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and part of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. NIOSH is generally responsible for conducting research and making recommendations for the prevention of work-related illnesses and injuries.
Standard unique identifier that must be used by health care providers for electronic health care transactions covered under HIPAA.
An act or omission in which there is a failure to use the ordinary care that a prudent person ought to use under the circumstances. Negligence can cause or create a legal liability.
An association of workers’ compensation insurers licensed by the Superintendent of the Department of Financial Services as the rate service organization (RSO) for workers’ compensation in New York. It collects and analyzes loss data and, as the designated RSO, files loss costs with the Insurance Department for rate making purposes. It also administers experience rating and classifications of employers for determining premium.
The NYCCPAP was adopted on April 1, 1993 to address premium differences between high wage and low wage paying employers having similar construction operations. Premium credits based upon the hourly wage rate paid by the employer and the distribution of classifications shown on the employer’s policy are developed by the Rating Board and applied to the insured's premium.
A decision of no further action (NFA) is based on a WCLJ determination that no issues need to be adjudicated by the WCB at the time of the finding. If or when further WCB action is required, a hearing must be requested by one of the parties to the claim.
Under the Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit Law and the Volunteer Ambulance Workers' Benefit Law, notice of injury or death must be given by the injured volunteer firefighter or ambulance worker or dependents within 90 days after the injury or death.
NYSIF's carrier case number also known as a workers' compensation claim number or loss id (e.g. 12345678 - 123). The last three numbers typically identify the NYSIF claim unit handling this claim.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was established by the OSH Act of 1970. Under this federal law, the US Department of Labor has responsibility of formulating safety and health standards for all businesses engaged in interstate commerce.
Effective January 1, 2018, the New York State Paid Family Leave Program provides New Yorkers job-protected, paid leave to bond with a new child, care for a loved one with a serious health condition or to help relieve family pressures when someone is called to active military service. NYSIF offers PFL coverage as part of NYSIF disability benefits (DB) policies.
Any person or organization (ex: the carrier, claimant, representative, employer, hospital, etc.) that is placed on notice for hearings and/or decisions.
NYSIF's online Premium Audit Scheduling System (PASS) allows NYSIF policyholders scheduled for a premium audit to choose a more convenient date and time, or to change the audit location.
The maximum number of weeks of compensation, from 225 to 525, that a claimant classified as PPD may receive, based on percentage finding of lost earning capacity. The cap applies only to non-scheduled PPD cases with a date of accident on or after March 13, 2007.
A network of pharmacies and mail order services under the direction of an organization, which provide prescription benefits under contract or agreement with a carrier or employer.
A physical hazard is a feature in the construction, maintenance, use or condition of a work location that creates the possibility of an accident.
A party to whom a policy is issued, and who pays a premium to an insurer in consideration of the latter's promise to provide insurance protection.
The number that is assigned to your insurance policy.
The year commencing with the effective date of a policy or with the renewal date of that policy, to be distinguished from calendar year, which always starts January 1.
Injuries, sickness or medical conditions existing prior to the injury or onset of the occupational disease.
Network of medical providers that renders services (at contracted rates) for the treatment of workers' compensation injuries and illnesses to employees of participating policyholders.
The rate that an insured is charged reflecting their expectation of loss or risk.
Insurance that responds first to a claim (i.e., it provides coverage on a first-dollar basis), sometimes subject to a deductible.
Cost of insurance per unit used as a means or base for the determination of premium.
Ratemaking is a process by which historical insurance statistics are compiled, analyzed and projected into the future by trained actuarial professionals in order to produce adequate and equitable manual rates or loss costs. The Actuarial Department of the New York Compensation Rating Board is responsible for calculating the appropriate loss cost for each of approximately 600 classifications of businesses throughout the state.
A Rate Service Organization (RSO) is an entity designated by the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services for the collection and analysis of workers' compensation data.
The anniversary rating date is the effective month and day of the policy in effect and each annual anniversary thereafter unless a different date has been established by the Rating Board. Normally the anniversary rating date is the same as the policy effective date. However, the rating date can be different from the policy effective date, e.g., if a policy has been short termed on an experience rated policy for which the rating date remains the same. The rating date determines which rates are to be applied for a given period regardless of the policy anniversary date.
A compensation rate based on the claimant’s reduced earning or reduced earning capacity due to a condition related to a compensable injury (WC law § 15).
A document issued by an insurance company extending the terms of a policy for a subsequent period of time. It reestablishes the in-force status of a policy. All NYSIF policies with in-force status are automatically renewed unless instructed otherwise by the policyholder or their representative.
A WCB Panel memorandum of decision which voids or annuls a WCLJ decision. Decisions to rescind are usually issued without prejudice in order to allow the parties to present evidence or testimony not previously presented to a WCLJ.
The amount of money set aside to pay the potential future cost of a claim.
An insurance plan for which the final premium is not determined until the end of the coverage period and is based on the insured's own loss experience for that same period.
The entity, property or other exposure to be insured. Also used to signify uncertainty about financial loss.
A Return to Work program is a written plan designed to get employees back to work as soon as medically possible following an on-the-job injury or illness, and can be initiated by either the employer or the carrier. It is mutually beneficial to both employees and employers.
Safety Group is a loss sensitive insurance program that enables employers in the same industry to pool their insurance premiums with the goal of reducing the cost of workers' compensation insurance.
An SLU occurs when an employee has permanently lost use of an upper extremity (shoulder, arm, hand, wrist, finger), lower extremity (hip, leg, knee, ankle, foot, toe), or eyesight or hearing. Compensation is limited to a certain number of weeks based on the body part and severity of the disability, according to a schedule set by law. Temporary benefits that have been paid are deducted from the total SLU award.
Unofficial name for the Special Disability Fund established to encourage employers to hire workers with physical handicaps. When workers with pre-existing conditions suffer further work-related injuries, or disease, that results in a greater disability, the employer, through the insurer, is responsible for only part of the benefits. The Second Injury Fund is responsible for the rest (WC law § 15, Sub. 8). This provision no longer applies for loss dates after June 30, 2007.
WC Law § 32 Waiver Agreements allow for complete, full and final resolution of a WC claim.
Termination of a NYSIF WC policy before its normal expiration date which in turn causes a refund of premium which is less than that which would ordinarily be due to the insured for the proportion of time that coverage was in force.
Where the loss cost for a given classification is based on payroll exposure, the SIF manual rate premium is computed by multiplying the estimated annual payroll by the rate (expressed in dollars and cents per $100 per payroll), which is arrived at by multiplying the approved loss cost by the SIF loss cost multiplier and dividing the result by 100.
Individual ownership of a business or other institution.
Funds established under the WC law to assure payments of benefits associated with claims, usually by transferring all or part of the liability to Special Funds.
The Special Funds Conservation Committee was established in 1938 for the purpose of maintaining and defending the Special Disability Fund and the Fund for Reopened Cases under § 15-8 and § 25-a of the Workers’ Compensation Law.
An individual or business firm contracting to perform part of or all of another's contract. More about Subcontractors.
The right of a secondary party (e.g., insurance company) to stand in the place of another (e.g., a policyholder or claimant) after making payment to a creditor (e.g., claimant) to enforce the creditor's right against the party primarily liable for such payment in order to obtain indemnity from such primary party.
A record of an event sent to the WCB that completes a subsequent report of injury requirement.
The wage earning capacity is lost only partially, and on a temporary basis.
A temporary reduced earnings rate of compensation pending adjudication of the actual amount of reduced earnings or the determination of the claimant’s reduced wage earning capacity.
In workers' compensation cases, the term often refers to lawsuits against parties such as equipment manufacturers, facility owners and other non-employer entities whose products or services contributed to the occurrence of an accident.
An independent organization that has been contracted to administer identified services. These services may include claims administration, premium collection, enrollment and other administrative functions.
Complete loss of earning capacity due to claimant’s permanent partial disability. This is based on medical factors, combined with other vocational factors (such as limited education), which render the claimant incapable of any gainful employment.
A regularly scheduled hearing on a case conducted by a WCLJ that is designed to permit the introduction of evidence and/or witnesses and the presentation of arguments by the parties.
The person authorized by an insurance company to bind coverage and make changes to policy terms.
An addition to a workers' compensation policy that covers benefits to employees who are not required to be covered by a state's WC law.
Chapter 64-B of the Consolidated Laws provides medical and compensation benefits or, in the case of death, death and survivor benefits to their dependents for volunteer ambulance workers.
Chapter 64-A of the Consolidated Laws provides medical and compensation benefits or, in the case of death, death and survivor benefits to their dependents for volunteer firefighters.
A NYSIF form periodically sent to claimants requesting certification of current employment status and continued entitlement to worker's compensation benefits.
The proportion of pre-injury wages replaced by workers' compensation benefits.
Period covering the first seven days of disability resulting from a work-connected injury or illness. Workers' compensation indemnity benefits are not allowable for the first seven days of disability, except in cases where the disability period exceeds 14 days, indemnity awards are allowed from the date of disability (WC law § 12, § 204 and § 211). There is no waiting period for VAWBL and VFBL cases (WC law § 43).
Waiver Agreement Management Office (WAMO) under the supervision of the chair of the Workers' Compensation Board. WAMO will be dedicated to expediting Section 32 Settlements on §15-8 (Second Injury) established cases, pursuant to WC Law.
A voluntary release or relinquishment of a right of action (e.g., right to sue) on behalf of another.
A reported work injury or illness, which has been assembled and assigned a case number (indexed) by an indexing unit of the WCB. The WCB Case Number (workers' compensation) is eight characters beginning with an alpha character, followed by seven numeric characters. For example, G1234567. Volunteer ambulance workers’ cases begin with AA, followed by six numbers (e.g. AA123456). Volunteer firefighters’ cases begin with FA, followed by six numbers (e.g. FA123456).
preparing formal notices of decision based on judge's directions.
The term implying employers or their insurance carriers may provide non-binding compensation or medical payments, including payments for medication, for up to one year without admitting liability or giving up specific legal rights.
(a) The agency charged with administering the provisions of the NYS WC law, including: Workers' Compensation Law, the Volunteer Ambulance Workers Benefit Law, the Volunteer Firefighters Benefit Law, and the Disability Benefits Law.
(b) The 13-member board responsible, either directly or via review by delegated authority, for determining all issues involving claims under the Workers' Compensation Law.
New York State Workers' Compensation insurance provides injured workers with medical and compensation benefits or, in the case of death, death and survivor benefits to their dependents for on-the-job injuries.
Rates are determined by the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board (NYCIRB) and published in the Rating Board Manual. These rates are usually per $100 of payroll, with the rate being determined by job classification. There are several classifications, however, where the rate is not on a payroll basis, but rather on a per capita, per location, population or per policy.
Chapter 67 of the Consolidated Laws, governing the workers' compensation system; separate laws cover compensation benefits for volunteer firefighters and volunteer ambulance workers.
An officer appointed by the WCB Chair to hear and determine claims and to conduct hearings and investigations and make such orders, decisions and determinations as may be required in the adjudication of the claim. A Judge's decision is deemed the decision of the WCB unless the WCB modifies or rescinds such decision.
A policy that covers all exposures for a large group that has something in common. For example, wrap-up insurance is written for all the various businesses working together on a particular project, to provide coverage for losses arising out of that work only.


Argued Dec. 2 and 3, 1926.
Mr. Carroll Single, of San Francisco, Cal. (Mr. S. Hasket Derby, of San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for respondent.
Petitioner is a common carrier on the Sacramento river in California, and owns and operates the barge Tennessee, which is not equipped with motive power, and the steamer San Joaquin No. 4. On September 23, 1921, petitioner received from respondent for transportation a quantity of barley in sacks. The bill of lading acknowledges shipment of the barley 'on board of the Sacramento Transportation (Navigation) Co.'s barge Tennessee, * * * with the privilege of reshipping in whole or in part, on steamboats or barges; also with the privilege of towing with one steamer, at the same time, * * * two or more barges, either loaded or empty.' While being towed by the steamer in the course of transportation, the barge came into collision with a British ship at anchor and was swamped. The barley was a total loss. The sole cause of the collision was the negligence of the steamer. That both barge and steamer were 'in all respects seaworthy, and properly manned, equipped, and supplied,' is not in dispute. Upon these facts, respondent filed its libel in personam against petitioner.
In the view we take of the case the sole question to be determined is whether the barge alone, or the combination of tug and barge, was the 'vessel transporting' the barley, within the meaning of the Harter Act. This question is a nice one, and the answer to it is by no means obvious. The court below thought the contract was between the respondent and the barge, and did not include the tug; that, since the barge had no power of her own, there was an implied contract that a tug would be furnished to carry her to her destination; and that the Harter Act should receive a strict construction, and, so construed, it applied only to the relation of a vessel to the cargo with which she was herself laden-that is to say, in this case, the barge alone. The decree of the District Court for respondent, accordingly, was affirmed. 3 F. (2d) 759.
The fact that we are dealing with vessels, which by a fiction of the law are invested with personality, does not require us to disregard the actualities of the situation, namely, that the owner of the tug towed his own barge as a necessary incident of the contract of affreightment, and that the transportation of the cargo was in fact effected by their joint operation. The bill of lading declares that the cargo was shipped on board the barge. But it was to be transported, and this the barge alone was incapable of doing, since she had no power of self-movement. If results, necessarily, that it was within the contemplation of the contract that the transportation would be accomplished by combining the barge with a vessel having such power. Respondent says there was an implied contract to this effect; that is, as we understand, a distinct contract implied in fact. But a contract includes, not only the promises set forth in express words, but, in addition, all such implied provisions as are indispensable to effectuate the intention of the parties and as arise from the language of the contract and the circumstances under which it was made. 3 Williston on Contracts, § 1293; Brodie v. Cardiff Corporation (1919) A. C. 337, 358. And there is no justification here for going beyond the contract actually made to invoke the conception of an independent implied contract.
It is said that the Harter Act is to be strictly construed. The Main v. Williams, 152 U. S. 122, 132, 14 S. Ct. 486, 38 L. Ed. 381. Even so, the rule of strict construction is not violated by permitting the words of a statute to have their full meaning, or the more extended of two meanings. The words are not to be bent one way or the other, but to be taken in the sense which will best manifest the legislative intent. United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, 396, 18 L. Ed. 830; United States v. Corbett, 215 U. S. 233, 242, 30 S. Ct. 81, 54 L. Ed. 173. In the light of the decisions presently to be noted, the words a 'vessel transporting merchandise,' etc., are entirely appropriate to describe the combination now in question, and we see no reason to think that Congress intended that they should not be so applied. This court and other federal courts repeatedly have held that such a combination constitutes, in law, one vessel. See The Northern Belle, 9 Wall. 526, 528, 529, 19 L. Ed. 746; The Civilta and the Restless, 103 U. S. 699, 701, 26 L. Ed. 599; The Nettie Quill, supra; The Columbia (C. C. A.) 73 F. 226; The Seven Bells (C. C. A.) 241 F. 43, 45; The Fred W. Chase (D. C.) 31 F. 91, 95; The Bordentown (D. C.) 40 F. 682, 687; State v. Turner, 34 Or. 173, 175, 176, 55 P. 92, 56 P. 645.
It was accordingly held that, without surrendering both vessels, the owner was not entitled to the advantages of Revised Statutes, § 4283 et seq. (Comp. St. § 8021 et seq.), providing for a limitation of liability of 'the owner of any vessel,' etc.
Respondent contends that his view to the contrary is sustained by The Murrel (C. C. A.) 195 F. 483, affirming (D. C.) 200 F. 826, and The Coastwise (C. C. A.) 233 F. 1, affirming (D. C.) 230 F. 505. Some things are said in those cases which, if we should not consider the differences between them and the present case, might justify this contention. The most important of these differences is that in both cases it was held that contracts of towage and not of affreightment were involved. We do not stop to inquire whether this conclusion as to the nature of the contracts was justified by the facts. It is enough that it was so held, and this holding was the basis of the decisions. Here, upon all the facts, as we have just said, the contract upon which respondent must rest is one of affreightment, the obligation of which is to carry a cargo, not to tow a vessel.
Liverpool, etc., Nav. Co. v. Brooklyn Terminal, 251 U. S. 48, 40 S. Ct. 66, 64 L. Ed. 130, also relied upon by respondent, is not to the contrary. There the libel was for a collision with petitioner's steamship, the moving cause of which was respondent's steam tug, proceeding up the East River, with a loaded car float lashed to one side and a disabled tug to the other, all belonging to respondent. The car float came into contact with the steamship; but the court said it was a passive instrument in the hands of the tug and did not affect the question of responsibility. The controversy arose upon a claim to limit liability, petitioner contending that the entire flotilla should have been surrendered. This court held that it was necessary to surrender only the active tug, saying 'that for the purposes of liability the passive instrument of the harm does not become one with the actively responsible vessel by being attached to it.' But this is far from saying that the entire flotilla might not be regarded as one vessel for the purposes of the undertaking in which the common owner was engaged at the time of the collision. The distinction seems plain. There the libel was for an injury to a ship in no way related to the flotilla. It was a pure tort; no contractual obligations were involved; and the simple inquiry was, What constituted the 'offending vessel'? Here we must ask, What constituted the vessel by which the contract of transportation was to be effected? a very different question. It the British ship, which here was struck by the barge, were suing to recover damages, and a limitation of liability were sought by the owner of the tug and barge, the Liverpool Case would be in point. But the present libel is for a loss of cargo, and falls within the principle of The Columbia, supra, where, upon facts substantially identical with those here, a surrender was required of the combined means by which the company undertook the transportation of the cargo.


Readers have commented on prior blog entries about the opportunities and risks of opting out of the IRS 2009 OVDP and 2001 OVDI. I thought I would devote a specific blog entry to the subject to better focus readers comments, particularly as anecdotal evidence comes out about how the IRS is actually dealing with opt outs, and make them more easily accessible to readers.
The fear among taxpayers and practitioners is that the IRS will be punitive in its application of the penalty structure. We don't know yet whether the fear will be realized.
If the offshore penalty is unacceptable to a taxpayer, that taxpayer must indicate in writing the decision to withdraw from or opt out of the program. Once made, this election is irrevocable. An opt out is an election made by a taxpayer to have his or her case handled under the standard audit process. It should be recognized that in a given case, the opt out option may reflect a preferred approach. That is, there may be instances in which the results under the applicable voluntary disclosure program appear too severe given the facts of the case. There will be other instances where this is less clear. In the latter cases, the Service will look to ensure that the best interests of the Service and the integrity of the voluntary disclosure program remain intact. In these cases, it is expected that full scope examinations will occur if opt out is initiated. It is expected that opt out will be appropriate for a discrete minority of cases. Moreover, to the extent that issues are found upon a full scope examination that were not disclosed by the taxpayer, those issues may be the subject of review by Criminal Investigation. In either case, opting out is at the sole discretion of the taxpayer and the taxpayer should not be treated in a negative fashion merely because he or she chooses to opt out.
The specific procedures for opting out are set forth in a separate guide titled Opt Out and Removal Guide for the 2009 OVDP and 2011 OVDI. The guide is posted to the website.
Taxpayers are reminded, that even after opting out of the Service’s civil settlement structure, they remain within Criminal Investigation’s Voluntary Disclosure Practice. Therefore, taxpayers are still required to cooperate fully with the examiner by providing all requested information and records and must still pay or make arrangements to pay the tax, interest, and penalties they are ultimately determined to owe. If a taxpayer does not cooperate and make payment arrangements, or if after examination, issues exist that were not disclosed prior to opt out, the case may be referred back to Criminal Investigation.
Second, I link to the referenced Opt Out and Removal Guide for the 2009 OVDP and 2011 OVDI.
Third, I quote 2011 OVDI FAQ 5 (as updated 2/14/11) which provides the range of penalties that the IRS could apply on the opt out (FAQ 5 actually deals with the penalties that could apply if the taxpayer does not get into the program, but they are the same as could apply on an opt out when the taxpayer is subject to examination).
What are some of the civil penalties that might apply if I don't come in under voluntary disclosure and the IRS examines me? How do they work?
• A penalty for failing to file the Form TD F 90-22.1 (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as an “FBAR”). United States citizens, residents and certain other persons must annually report their direct or indirect financial interest in, or signature authority (or other authority that is comparable to signature authority) over, a financial account that is maintained with a financial institution located in a foreign country if, for any calendar year, the aggregate value of all foreign accounts exceeded $10,000 at any time during the year. Generally, the civil penalty for willfully failing to file an FBAR can be as high as the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of the total balance of the foreign account per violation. See 31 U.S.C. § 5321(a)(5). Non-willful violations that the IRS determines were not due to reasonable cause are subject to a $10,000 penalty per violation.
• A penalty for failing to file Form 3520, Annual Return to Report Transactions With Foreign Trusts and Receipt of Certain Foreign Gifts. Taxpayers must also report various transactions involving foreign trusts, including creation of a foreign trust by a United States person, transfers of property from a United States person to a foreign trust and receipt of distributions from foreign trusts under IRC § 6048.This return also reports the receipt of gifts from foreign entities under section 6039F.The penalty for failing to file each one of these information returns, or for filing an incomplete return, is 35 percent of the gross reportable amount, except for returns reporting gifts, where the penalty is five percent of the gift per month, up to a maximum penalty of 25 percent of the gift.
• A penalty for failing to file Form 3520-A, Information Return of Foreign Trust With a U.S. Owner. Taxpayers must also report ownership interests in foreign trusts, by United States persons with various interests in and powers over those trusts under IRC § 6048(b).The penalty for failing to file each one of these information returns or for filing an incomplete return, is five percent of the gross value of trust assets determined to be owned by the United States person.
• A penalty for failing to file Form 5471, Information Return of U.S. Persons with Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations. Certain United States persons who are officers, directors or shareholders in certain foreign corporations (including International Business Corporations) are required to report information under IRC §§ 6035, 6038 and 6046.The penalty for failing to file each one of these information returns is $10,000, with an additional $10,000 added for each month the failure continues beginning 90 days after the taxpayer is notified of the delinquency, up to a maximum of $50,000 per return.
• A penalty for failing to file Form 5472, Information Return of a 25% Foreign-Owned U.S. Corporation or a Foreign Corporation Engaged in a U.S. Trade or Business. Taxpayers may be required to report transactions between a 25 percent foreign-owned domestic corporation or a foreign corporation engaged in a trade or business in the United States and a related party as required by IRC §§ 6038A and 6038C. The penalty for failing to file each one of these information returns, or to keep certain records regarding reportable transactions, is $10,000, with an additional $10,000 added for each month the failure continues beginning 90 days after the taxpayer is notified of the delinquency.
• A penalty for failing to file Form 926, Return by a U.S. Transferor of Property to a Foreign Corporation. Taxpayers are required to report transfers of property to foreign corporations and other information under IRC § 6038B. The penalty for failing to file each one of these information returns is ten percent of the value of the property transferred, up to a maximum of $100,000 per return, with no limit if the failure to report the transfer was intentional.
• A penalty for failing to file Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships. United States persons with certain interests in foreign partnerships use this form to report interests in and transactions of the foreign partnerships, transfers of property to the foreign partnerships, and acquisitions, dispositions and changes in foreign partnership interests under IRC §§ 6038, 6038B, and 6046A. Penalties include $10,000 for failure to file each return, with an additional $10,000 added for each month the failure continues beginning 90 days after the taxpayer is notified of the delinquency, up to a maximum of $50,000 per return, and ten percent of the value of any transferred property that is not reported, subject to a $100,000 limit.
• Fraud penalties imposed under IRC §§ 6651(f) or 6663. Where an underpayment of tax, or a failure to file a tax return, is due to fraud, the taxpayer is liable for penalties that, although calculated differently, essentially amount to 75 percent of the unpaid tax.
• A penalty for failing to file a tax return imposed under IRC § 6651(a)(1). Generally, taxpayers are required to file income tax returns. If a taxpayer fails to do so, a penalty of 5 percent of the balance due, plus an additional 5 percent for each month or fraction thereof during which the failure continues may be imposed. The penalty shall not exceed 25 percent.
• A penalty for failing to pay the amount of tax shown on the return under IRC § 6651(a)(2). If a taxpayer fails to pay the amount of tax shown on the return, he or she may be liable for a penalty of .5 percent of the amount of tax shown on the return, plus an additional .5 percent for each additional month or fraction thereof that the amount remains unpaid, not exceeding 25 percent.
• An accuracy-related penalty on underpayments imposed under IRC § 6662. Depending upon which component of the accuracy-related penalty is applicable, a taxpayer may be liable for a 20 percent or 40 percent penalty.
Jack in your experience, how long does it take for the case to be assigned to a civil agent after the packet has been sent in. Is there a set guideline within the service for that?
it's going to be tough! i know most of expats or immigrants are honest and decent people who just happen to have some money offshore and these are bloody hard earned money. however the tax law does not distinguish/discriminate us from the Swiss Bank fat cats (that is why it is called a law).
the public is on the other side, and we are simply labeled as tax cheats by IRS the same way as other fat cats. the country is in deep trouble and we have over 9% who can not find a job. who would give sympathy to us for losing money (as some would describe as IRS robbery) while there are so many people who don't have money at all.
i would strongly suggest to get it over with ASAP and move on with what ever left the money.
for those who have not yet come forward, please do a lot home work first before approaching IRS and this is really a point of no return. i have a lot friends who just stay where they are (hoping that IRS won't bother to dig out all the thin cats). i am the only one who has honest stupidity (believe in gov fairness).
OVDP 2009 - I have not gone back to review the timing, but sometimes it would take months from the civil submission.
OVDI 2011: I have just sent in my first OVDI 2011 package and don't know when it will be assigned.
For our OVDP 2009, it was about 9 months from submission to first contact by agent. btw, now a year later, still not compete.
Do not know if that is normal or not.
I think the timeframe for resolution is unpredictable. It is not unusual to have long periods of no activity or contact. Its a nerve racking SOB. Also the more you argue a point the longer it seems to take as other IRS folks get involved to review.
Just an FYI. Yesterday, I had a long conversation with my field auditor and her Manager who are still working my 2009 OVDP and possible Opt Out. I was trying to get a feel if they had any better idea of the mindset of the "Management Committee" and what discretion is being applied in the process.
We are in the 20 day count down to decide one way or the other, and so we have a strong interest to get some indications of which way the wind is blowing. Is it still a full gale out there, or is their some moderation in wind direction or force.
They stated that they heard that day that the very first case was being reviewed by the Committee following the new Opt Out guidelines. They didn't think the results would ever be public. They were in the dark as much as I was about possible outcomes or if discretion as allowed in the IRM was going to apply.
It was stated that this "Opt Out" was an evolving process and generally they were uncertain on what to expect.
So, my read is that it still seems to be a very risky proposition to take the Opt Out if there is no indication that anything but the strictest of FBAR penalties will apply.
I am not getting any indication that someone will lift their heads from the minutia of their rules and regs to look at the large picture...ie "Does the FBAR penalty punishment really fit the so called crime." This isn't a justice system, it is a revenue collection effort. Period.
I am also in the process of opting-out from the 2009 OVDI.
Assuming that the full audit determines non-willful intent and they assess max non-willful penalty, what avenues are there for the taxpayer to contest the penalty? Is there an Appeal process? And if so, assuming the Appeals process proves unsuccessful, will the taxpayer be able to request a jury hearing?
If you opt out you are basically saying no to the in lieu of penalty that is a catch all penalty except for the 20% accuracy on backtax. IRS will then seek to apply all penalties that they can assess and collect. In order to collect the FBAR penalty, DOJ will have to prove the facts in non tax court. The big question is will they seek the willful penalty and what amount will that be. Also, they will probably throw every other tax code penalty available at you like all the ones listed in OVDI guidelines if they apply.It is in essence government pressure aimed at making you accept the OVDI outcome and moving on. If IRS allowed an easy opt out to be the norm, they would probably get log jambed. The bottom line is that IRS has painted a threatening picture of opting out and no one knows for sure how bad the outcome will be until they do it and dare the IRS to nail them with penalties outside the program. Do you believe the IRS will operate in good faith without retribution as a motive? If not I would think twice about opting out. The sad thing is that even if you have really good facts, you will have to spend time and money defending your position against one of the most powerful organizations in the world.
I would STRONGLY urge contacting a CPA/lawyer before taking an irrevocable step such as opting out of the OVDP. Your questions seem pretty basic and they could better evaluate your position.
There is an appeals process, but its supposed to go through an FBAR Appeals Co-ordinator. I'm not sure what implication that has for penalties.
FBAR penalties are Title 31 penalties, so the government would have to sue you to collect. I don't think it would be easy to legally fight a nonwillful penalty. Technically, all DoJ/IRS has to do is to show that you were legally required to fill in an FBAR and that you did not fill it. The statutory exceptions such as "reasonable cause" seem very narrow and require reporting account balance.
Any update on your 2011 submissions?
Thanks for sharing your valuable knowledge OVDP.