medical_exam.JPG

“Independent” Medical Examinations in Workers’ Compensation (Anything but “Independent”)

Today’s post comes from guest author Thomas Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.

“I thought their doctor Independent Medical Report was the last word on my case. I didn’t know any better.” 

This statement from a client I just met sums up the experience of many injured workers unfamiliar with the workers’ compensation process in Wisconsin (and many other states).

An insurance company or self-insured employer may request an injured worker submit to reasonable examinations by a physician, chiropractor, psychologist, dentist, podiatrist, physicians assistant, or Advanced Practice Nurse Practitioner of its choice. Wis. Stat. §102.17(1)(b). This examination is usually referred to as an Independent Medical Examination or “IME” although “adverse medical examination” more accurately reflects the process.  An Independent Medical Examination may be requested by the insurance company or self-insured employer in order to determine whether the claim is compensable and the extent of the disability or the necessity and type of treatment. 

Since only about one in ten injured workers in Wisconsin is represented by an attorney, nine out of ten unrepresented workers are not aware that the insurance company’s “IME” is actually an adverse exam by a doctor hired by and paid by the insurance company to issue his report. Although IME examiners would deny they routinely render an opinion in favor of the insurance carrier, my forty years of experience suggests just that. For many years lawyers representing injured workers have been proposing the terminology “Adverse Medical Examination” apply to give represented and unrepresented workers a more fair assessment of the process. Many IMEs make hundreds of thousands of dollars annually performing these examinations. At one of these examinations, my client overheard the IME physician (who had rented a motel room) speaking to a prospective young doctor trying to convince that doctor to perform IMEs. “This is a great practice.” He said.  “All you have to do is review the medical records, meet with the worker for a few minutes, and deny the claim. And for that you can charge $1,500.” Although my client’s testimony to this effect was barred, the underlying accuracy of his testimony is undisputable.

Beware the “Independent” Medical Examination.

wheelchair_marathon.jpg

“Experts Provide Tips to Become More Resilient”

Today’s post comes from guest author Leonard Jernigan, from The Jernigan Law Firm.

Original post titled “Bounce Back” in Time Magazine June 1, 2015 (subscription required).

For almost two decades, Dr. Stephen Southwick, professor of psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine, and Dr. Dennis Chaney, Dean at Ichan School of Medicine, have been studying what makes some people “bounce back” faster than others after a traumatic or stressful experience. Their main conclusion is that having a set of learned skills, not a disposition or personality type, helps people thrive during and after hard times.

Some tips to help strengthen your resiliency are:

  1. develop a core of set beliefs that nothing can shake,
  2. try to find meaning in whatever stressful or traumatic thing has happened,
  3. try to maintain a positive outlook, and
  4. take cues from someone who is especially resilient.

Other helpful tips are to attempt to face your fears instead of running from them, and remember not to beat yourself up over or dwell on the past.

While all of these tips can help strengthen your ability to bounce back during a particularly tough time, finding the one that works for you is the key to being able to bend rather than break. Whether that is finding an exercise plan that works with your life style (exercise helps the development of new neurons which are damaged by stress according to Southwick) or facing your fears for the first time, there are several ways to strengthen your mind to be able to cope better with stressful events.

Read more about training the brain to be more resilient in the June 2015 issue of Time magazine.

 

laundry.jpg

Take-home Asbestos Exposure Causes Mesothelioma Decades Later

Today’s post comes from guest author Brian M. Wright, from Causey Law Firm.

Today’s guest post was co-authored by my wife, Kaitlin Wright, Associate Attorney with Bergman Draper Ladenburg Hart.  – – BMW

Take-home asbestos exposure through laundering contaminated clothing causes mesothelioma decades later.

Thomas H. Hart, III

Kaitlin T. Wright

There are few things in life that seem as mundane and benign as the simple act of doing household chores like laundry. Yet this routine chore, done for her husband, was the source of Barbara Brandes’ unwitting exposure to asbestos that ultimately caused her death decades later.

From 1971 until 1975, Barbara Brandes’ husband Ray worked as an operator at the newly-constructed Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) Cherry Point oil refinery in Ferndale, Washington. Defendant Brand Insulations contracted to perform the insulation work during the construction of the ARCO refinery in 1971 and 1972. At a time when there could be little doubt that the world knew asbestos was dangerous and carcinogenic—after the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the genesis of the environmental revolution it epitomized—Brand used asbestos insulation in its work at the Cherry Point refinery without warning workers or taking any precautions to reduce hazardous asbestos exposures generated by Brand’s insulation work.

During the early 1970s, Brand insulators worked on-site at the Cherry Point refinery fabricating and installing insulation in the areas where Ray Brandes worked as an operator. The dust generated by Brand’s insulation activities contaminated Ray’s clothing with asbestos fiber. He was also exposed to asbestos when he and other ARCO employees removed the insulation materials Brand had installed when performing repairs to equipment and pipe.

At the end of each shift Ray worked at the Cherry Point refinery, he would return home in the clothes he had worn to work. Barbara would launder that clothing several times a week. When she shook the clothes out before putting them into the washer, asbestos fiber was released and dispersed into the air, exposing Barbara to invisible, imperceptible carcinogenic dust.

More than 40 years after Ray left the ARCO refinery, Barbara was diagnosed in June of 2014 with malignant pleural mesothelioma, a terminal cancer of the lining of the lung. At the time of her diagnosis, Barbara was advised by her physicians that her life expectancy was likely one year. Barbara succumbed to her mesothelioma on April 19, 2015, the evening before closing arguments in her trial against Brand Insulations.

The case was tried over two weeks in April in King County Superior Court before Judge William Downing. Plaintiffs were represented by Tom Hart and Kaitlin Wright of Bergman Draper Ladenburg Hart, PLLC. Brand Insulations, Inc. was represented by David Shaw and Malika Johnson of Williams, Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC. Barbara was 80 years old at the time of trial. The jury found that Brand was negligent, and that Brand’s negligence was a proximate cause of Barbara’s mesothelioma. The verdict included non-economic damages in the amount of $3,500,000.

Discovery Hurdles

One of the challenges in this case was locating witnesses capable of testifying to Ray Brandes’ employment and exposures at the Cherry Point refinery. Due to health issues, Ray was unable to testify or to recall the names of his coworkers so that they could be contacted and interviewed. An ad placed in The Bellingham Herald led to identification of Ray’s former coworkers, some of whom remembered working with him at the refinery back in the 1970s. An ARCO employee who responded to the ad testified at trial, and was one of the most compelling witnesses in the case as he was able to provide direct testimony regarding the work practices and exposures Ray Brandes experienced while Brand was working in his vicinity.

Liability Issues

In pretrial motions practice, the trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s common law product liability claim against Brand, leaving negligence as the sole theory of liability for trial. Plaintiffs presented evidence that Brand had won the insulation subcontract with the general contractor for construction of the Cherry Point facility by coming in with the lowest lump-sum bid for the job. Brand contracted to perform “installation of thermal insulation of columns, heat exchangers, vessels, reformers, tanks, and piping in the various refinery units” at Cherry Point, procuring and installing all insulation materials on equipment and on the miles of piping required to be insulated throughout the refinery.

Brand offered testimony from Michael McGinnis, the project engineer who coordinated the Cherry Point job on behalf of Brand. Mr. McGinnis testified that he was just 21 years old when he traveled from Chicago to Ferndale to oversee the job, and conceded that he was equipped only with a high school education and on-the-job experience gained from his work as an apprentice insulator for Brand. On cross-examination by Mr. Hart, Mr. McGinnis acknowledged that the Cherry Point project was Brand’s largest dollar-value job in the company’s history by orders of magnitude. Mr. Hart also elicited from Mr. McGinnis on cross-examination the concession that no one at Brand had reviewed then-applicable Washington regulations identifying asbestos as a hazardous dust and requiring industrial hygiene controls to reduce exposures, nor did Brand make any effort to comply with those regulations.

Plaintiffs offered testimony from workers at the Cherry Point refinery who explained that the work of Brand insulators in the various refinery units manipulating, cutting, sawing, and installing asbestos insulation products generated considerable dust. Additional witnesses explained that ARCO had initially requested an asbestos-free refinery, but the asbestos-free insulation failed, so Brand reverted to asbestos-containing insulation materials part-way through their work at Cherry Point. Under cross-examination by Mr. Hart, Mr. McGinnis conceded that Brand nonetheless never warned workers that they were using asbestos or took any measures to reduce asbestos exposures to bystanders like Ray Brandes.

Brand argued that it did not or could not have known of a risk of take-home asbestos exposure from the insulation work it performed at Cherry Point resulting in mesothelioma among family members of ARCO operators like Ray Brandes. Plaintiff’s expert pathologist Dr. Andrew Churg testified that Mrs. Brandes had malignant mesothelioma of the pleura or lining of the lung, and that her mesothelioma was caused by washing her husband’s asbestos-contaminated work clothing. Plaintiff’s expert industrial hygienist, John Templin, CIH, testified to the industrial hygiene measures and engineering controls available to Brand in the 1971-75 timeframe to protect against Ray and Barbara Brandes’ significant asbestos exposures resulting from Brand’s insulation work. Plaintiffs also called Dr. Barry Castleman who testified regarding the extensive body of scientific and medical literature published throughout the decades leading up to Barbara’s exposures in the early 1970s, which confirmed that asbestos exposure could cause fatal disease, including mesothelioma, and detailed methods of avoiding dangerous exposures to bystanders and family members of exposed workers. Brand called Francis Weir, Ph. D., and Joseph Holtshouser who testified regarding toxicology and industrial hygiene principles. Dr. Weir testified during cross-examination by Mr. Hart that other West Coast insulation contractors were researching the hazards of asbestos by the time Brand began its work at Cherry Point. Mr. Holtshouser testified to the dose reconstruction of Barbara’s asbestos exposures he had performed and opined that her exposures were minimal and insignificant.

Damages

Prior to her diagnosis, Barbara had undergone many rounds of chemotherapy in an attempt to slow the progression of her cancer and prolong her life. She was not a candidate for surgical resection of her tumor, nor was radiation therapy recommended. Barbara bravely pursued as aggressive a chemotherapy regimen as her body could tolerate and her oncologist would recommend. She had more than one bout with pneumonia and experienced many other side-effects from the chemotherapy. Plaintiffs elected to forego pursuit of economic damages related to Barbara’s medical treatment, and instead simply asked the jury to decide Barbara’s non-economic damages for her injuries, disability, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and pain and suffering.

Because Barbara passed away on the eve of closing arguments and submission of the case to the jury, Plaintiffs faced the prospect of quickly converting Barbara’s personal injury action to a survivorship action to allow the case to proceed. This was successfully accomplished and the jury was instructed as to the fact of Barbara’s passing, the change in the case caption, and that future non-economic damages were no longer to be considered in assessing Plaintiff’s damages. In closing, Ms. Wright and Mr. Hart brought together the story of Brand undercutting local insulation companies to win the Cherry Point contract, and Brand’s concomitant sacrifice of safety to maximize profit in the largest job it had ever undertaken. The jury was unanimous in its finding of Brand’s negligence.

Barbara is survived by her eight children and many grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and a great-great-grandchild. While Barbara’s deteriorating health prevented her from being present in the courtroom every day, her daughter Ramona Brandes attended trial and was able to observe her mother’s engrossment in the case even as she approached the end of her life. Ramona explained: “My tales of the trial in her last days were one of the things she sparked on, wanting to hear every last detail. She passed away the day before closing arguments, but I know her verdict is something she would have been so thrilled about because her win will help other families like ours fighting for their own justice.”

Thomas H. Hart, III, Partner – Bergman Draper Ladenburg Hart, PLLC

Tom Hart was a pioneer in asbestos litigation in the United States and continues work on behalf of injured shipyard workers, former Navy personnel, pipe fitters, carpenters and others ravaged by asbestos disease. Since 1980, Tom has successfully represented asbestos victims in over 40 States and Territories. Tom has won verdicts and settlements totaling hundreds of millions of dollars for his clients and their families. In 1986, Tom filed and served as Lead Counsel in the first Nation-wide Class Action Settlement for asbestos victims.

Kaitlin T. Wright, Associate – Bergman Draper Ladenburg Hart, PLLC

Kaitlin Wright joined Bergman Draper Ladenburg Hart as an associate in 2013 after graduating from Seattle University School of Law, magna cum laude. Prior to joining Bergman Draper Ladenburg Hart, Kaitlin externed with the Honorable Stephen J. Dwyer at the Washington Court of Appeals in Seattle. Kaitlin also worked during law school as a Rule 9 legal intern with the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office in Everett. In her two years at Bergman Draper Ladenburg Hart, Kaitlin has represented mesothelioma victims in litigation in Washington and Oregon and has tried cases to verdict in both states.

 

Photo credit: Tabsinthe / Hampton Patio / CC BY

 

nurse_case_manager.jpg

Workers’ Compensation:  The Man-made Quagmire (Part 2 of 3)

This is the second part of a three-part series in which I explain why workers should claim their rights under workers’ compensation laws. The first installment explains how employers commonly and purposefully make it difficult for workers to claim comp. This second part explains ways in which workers’ compensation insurance companies (from here on our we’ll call them “insurers”) also throw up barriers to workers getting comp benefits.

It is worth noting that many employers – mostly large corporate employers – file for and obtain a certificate from the Iowa Division of Insurance to “self-insure” for purposes of workers’ compensation. These self-insured employers have offices filled with staff that carry out the same work and serve the same purposes as out-dwelling work comp insurers. They do the same things as out-dwelling insurers to bar coverage, also.  Thus, I will treat them as one entity – “the insurer.”

Our third segment will explain why other benefits and programs don’t come even close to providing what the worker receives in workers’ compensation. It’s unfortunate, but the best thing a worker can do is slog through this quagmire and make good on his or her rights in comp.


Again, researchers determined years ago that many barriers are erected by insurers. The insurers’ barriers don’t stop after the worker applies for comp. In fact, in my experience the insurers deter workers by making obtaining comp benefits so unpleasant and frustrating, that the workers with future injuries will opt to not claim comp, but rather try to make do with other benefits, if possible. The biggest reasons workers give up on their rights in workers’ compensation are due to the insurers’ conscious effort to frustrate, confuse and delay every aspect of the claims process. That, however, is exactly what should not happen in comp. Why do I say that? Because the Iowa Supreme Court has repeatedly said that for decades. According to the Court it’s a basic fact of Iowa worker’s compensation law “that the injured claimant is compensated swiftly, fairly and with the least possible ‘red tape.’” DeShaw v. Energy Mfg. Co., 192 N.W.2d 777, 784 (Iowa 1971)(citing Cross v. Hermanson Bros., 235 Iowa 739, 16 N.W.2d 616, 618 (1944)). Besides being fast in result, the process is supposed to incline in favor of the worker. Again, as stated by the Iowa Supreme Court, “we keep in mind that the primary purpose of chapter 85 [ed. the work comp code chapter] is to benefit the worker and so we interpret this law liberally in favor of the employee. Stone Container Corp. v. Castle, 657 N.W.2d 485, 489 (Iowa 2003).

So what should you do to protect your workers’ compensation rights when the insurer is ignoring them?

Part I: Dealing with the Insurer’s Persuasion Tactics

  1. The Adjuster – The Insurers’ First Fortress in the way of Every WC Claim

    People used to ask why I do not like adjusters. The reason is that very few of them (something less than 5% by my best estimate) have any goal but cutting costs for the insurer, no matter what means are used to do so. In light of that I most commonly file the claim early on so as to deal with the insurers’ lawyers rather than the adjuster. How does the adjuster form a barrier – a tough fort – standing in the way of a legitimate work comp claim?

    1. The Various Types of Obstructive Adjusters
      Adjusters commonly do several things that occur so frequently that I believe that these things are learned and practiced forms of conduct, which are designed to frustrate any injured worker. What things?
      1. The Absent Adjuster – most commonly the adjuster may never answer the phone, instead letting all of your calls go to voice-mail. Then, the adjuster will not return your calls.
      2. The Rude Adjuster – nearly as common is the adjuster who denies a claim without explanation and will be demeaning and condescending in refusing to be willing to explain anything. In a system in which the worker is usually without any way to know things, being put down and denied without explanation is a very effective method of driving the worker out.
      3. The 100% Purposely-Ineffective Adjuster – the adjuster many times will promise action on a benefit and may even set personal deadline to do so. Then, the adjuster fails to get the action and merely extends the time for the deadline, again and again. Again, this is a very effective means to drive a worker from the system because the benefits (both medical and money) are usually promptly needed.
  2. The Adjuster’s Wingman – The “Nurse Case Manager” Commonly the adjuster/insurer will assign a “nurse case manager” (hereinafter “NCM”) to your claim. The NCM is a “confidence person.” She (the NCM is always a female in my experience) will tell the worker and family that she is there to get better and more prompt care. In fact, the NCM almost invariably seeks to interfere with the minimal care that even a company doctor renders. In most cases the NCM will also do anything to persuade that the worker should be returned to work, whether safe or not. The only effective remedy I’ve found for the NCM who acts unreasonably in denying my clients care is to file a complaint with the Iowa Board of Nursing.
  3. Employer’s Choice of Medical – “Paul McAndrew’s best friend” Why is it my best friend? Because if the law allowed Iowa workers the right to choose their own medical care, more than half of the workers who come in and need me would no longer need me. Why say that? Because about 75% of the workers who come to my office do so only because they’ve been delayed, denied, and frustrated in getting timely and proper care, so much by the company doctor (usually in conjunction with the adjuster and NCM) that they can’t get back to work as they must and they come to me to merely get medical care. They don’t even want the benefits much. They want only to get healthy so they can get back to work and earn a living to support their family. How does the adjuster/NCM/company doctor bar proper and timely care? By these means:
    1. The Company “Hack” (General-Practice Doctor)
      There are many company doctors who are well known to the practicing work comp bar as being dedicated to one thing: Maintaining that doctor’s share of the insurers’ referral of injured workers by almost any means. This leads the doctor to be little more than a mouthpiece for the insurer. This takes the form of:
      1. Stating some uncouth reason why the injury did not arise out of and in course of (commonly called “cause” but very different than) work (e. g., the court reporter, Smith).
      2. Minimizing or even ignoring the worker’s injury condition until the worker is discharged to her/his own doctor, or just leaves due to frustration.
      3. Carrying the worker along over months of periodic clinic visits without any real effort to determine a diagnosis and treat that diagnosis.
    2. The Company “Sweetheart” (Specialist Doctor)
      This specialist—-commonly an orthopedic surgeon or neurosurgeon—becomes the insurer’s favorite by always giving a favorable-to-the-insurer opinion. Again, the Sweethearts are well known to lawyers, but not to the worker.

Part II: The Insurers’ Tricks for Wrongfully Manipulating Care

  • Prompt Care/Unreasonable Delay in Providing Care
    This speaks for itself. It’s far and away the most common method of denying care—just delay it long enough and the worker’s life demands will cause the worker to turn elsewhere for care. This is easily overcome with the Alternate Care Procedure, briefly described here.
  • When the Authorized Doctor Recommends Care that the Insurance Company Denies
  • When the Authorized Doctor Refers to another Doctor and the Insurance Company Denies or tries to Refer, instead, to its “Sweetheart”
  • When the Authorized Doctor orders care and, Instead, the Insurance Company tries to “Transfer Care” to a Sweetheart Who Will Likely say what the Insurance Company Wants to Hear
  • When the only Care Offered is not Convenient Care. This is now standardized: if the care offered is more than 50 miles from the worker’s home and the same type of care is offered closer, then the 50+ – care is “inconvenient.” Remember the “convenience” requirement applies only to “care.” Unfortunately, it does not apply to the company’s right to send the worker for a medico-legal, one-time “independent medical examination.”

 


Alternate Care Process

The Iowa Legislature enacted in 1913 the comp’s system’s healthcare provision method. Iowa Code 85.27. 85.27 provides that the employer has the right to make the initial selection of care. In this regard, Iowa is only one of ten out of the fifty states and the United States (under FECA (Federal Employee Comp Act) and the Long Shore Act) that provide the employer with such unfettered power. For years, a worker had to wait months or more than a year to get to the final hearing to challenge the insurance company’s denial of care.

In 1992, however, Commissioner Byron Orton drafted a provision that was accepted by consensus of all interest groups and enacted into law, which create the “alternate care process.” This process allows the worker to obtain prompt relief for the denial of proper care. The process is relatively simple and designed to be carried out by a worker or union representative.

NOTE: While Section 85.27 gives the employer the right to select care, that right is qualified. The care provided must be (1) prompt, (2) reasonably suited to treat the injury and (3) without undue inconvenience to the claimant. Westside Transport v. Cordell, 601 N.W. 2d619, 694 (Iowa 1999). The failure of the employer to provide care meeting any of these three requirements gives the worker the right to bring an alternate-care procedure and have the Division of Workers’ Comp. order proper care be provided.

The Steps for Filing and Prosecuting ON YOUR OWN an Alternate Care Claim

  1. Before filing, the worker must communicate the basis of her/his dissatisfaction with the care (or lack of care) offered by the employer. If you don’t, the filing will be dismissed. Communicate dissatisfaction in writing or the employer will likely deny that there was communication.
  2. File on the form provided by the Commissioner. This form can easily be obtained at http://www.iowaworkforce.org/wc/publications.htm. There is no cost/filing fee. Make sure you send a copy of the form to your employer, also, as explained on the form.
  3. When filling out the form, ensure you state: (A) The specific medical treatment sought; (B) the grounds why what’s offered (if anything) is not proper (for example, “not prompt,” “not convenient,” or “not proper care for the injury condition,” etc.); and (C) that you ask for hearing by telephone.
  4. Alternative medical care proceedings are only prospective in nature. Bills for prior care will need to be adjudicated about a year later in the primary hearing.
  5. The grand majority of alternate care hearings are heard by phone.
  6. Alternate Care Procedures Yield Prompt Results. Why? Because by law the commissioner must both hear the alternate care matter by phone and issue the decision on the matter within ten (10) days of the filing of the alternate care petition.

Please join us next week for Part 3: Why it’s Important to Receive Comp.

Bumble_Bee_Foods.jpg

Tragic Cannery And Construction Site Deaths Highlight Need For Safety Enforcement

Today’s post comes from guest author Catherine Stanton, from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.

I was horrified when I recently read about a worker for a tuna company who was killed when he was cooked to death at the company’s California canning factory. According to the New York Daily News, the worker, Jose Melena, was performing maintenance in the 35-foot oven when a co-worker failed to notice he was still in the oven and turned it on to begin the steaming process of the tuna. The co-worker assumed Melena had gone to the bathroom. 

While there apparently was an effort to locate the worker, his body was not found until two hours later when the steamer was opened after it completed its cooking cycle. As an attorney, my clinical instinct shifts my focus to the mechanics of the accident and to fault. There are so many unanswered questions.  Why didn’t anyone check the machine before it was turned on? Why wasn’t the machine immediately shut down when they realized the worker was missing? As a person with feelings and emotions, I think of the horror and pain he must have gone through and the loss experienced by his family and friends as a result of his death. It is almost too awful to imagine. 

While this terrible tragedy occurred in 2012, it appears the reason that the story is currently newsworthy is that the managers were only recently charged by prosecutors in the worker’s death for violating Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) rules. Closer to home, more recent and just as unfortunate were the cases of the construction worker in Brooklyn who fell six stories from a scaffold while doing concrete work and a restaurant worker who was killed in Manhattan when a gas explosion destroyed the building he was working in. 

These stories highlight why safety procedures are so important. In some cases, there are no proper safety precautions in place. In others, there are safety measures in place but they may not have been followed. In rarer cases, crimes are committed that result in workplace fatalities. The failure to follow or implement proper safety procedures was a calculated risk, a terrible misstep, or a downright criminal act. In the case of the worker who died when he fell from a scaffold, there has been speculation that he may not have been attached properly to his safety harness. In the tuna factory death, the managers were charged with violating safety regulations; they face fines as well as jail time for their acts. In the gas explosion, there are allegations that the explosion was caused by workers’ illegally tapping into the restaurant gas line to provide heat for upstairs tenants. Prosecutors were trying to determine criminality; whatever the final outcomes, it appears that in these three instances the deaths were preventable. 

According to OSHA rules, employers have the responsibility to provide a safe workplace. They must provide their employees with a workplace free of serious hazards and follow all safety and health standards. They must provide training, keep accurate records, and as of January 1, 2015, notify OSHA within eight hours of a workplace fatality or within 24 hours of any work-related impatient hospitalization, amputation or loss of an eye.  

While this may seem like a small step, anything that results in creating higher standards for employers or encouraging them to keep safety a priority is always a good thing. These three examples are only a small percentage of the workplace deaths that occur each year. While not every death is preventable, everyone is entitled to go to work and expect to leave safely at the end of their shifts.  

Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717.

Screen_Shot_2015-05-06_at_11.20.04_AM.png

Stop Work Orders In Massachusetts Created $1.4 Million In Fines And Obtained Coverage For Over 5,000 Workers

Today’s post comes from guest author Leonard Jernigan, from The Jernigan Law Firm.

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Advisory Council has released its Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Report (PDF link). This report contains some eyebrow-raising statistics. Between 2008 and 2014, Massachusetts was able to help over 50,000 workers receive coverage due to Stop Work Orders (SWOs). In 2014 alone the Agency was able to obtain insurance for over 5,000 workers who previously had no workers’ compensation coverage.

Stop Work Orders are issued to employers who are operating without workers’ compensation insurance. An investigator is sent to the worksite and if an order is issued, the employer must cease business operations immediately. Fines will then be given starting at $100 per day until penalties are paid and the company secures insurance.

In Fiscal Year 2014, there were 5,785 Field Investigations resulting in 2,150 SWOs issued and $1,430,599 in fines collected. While SWOs are in effect, employees are still paid for the first ten days out-of-work due to the order and the days missed are considered “days worked.” In addition to the fines that the employer receives, they will be added to a debarment list preventing them from bidding or participating in any state or municipal contracts for three years.

 

Original post on www.mass.gov/lwd/workers-compensation in April 2015.

 

workplace_death_graphic.png

Death on the Job Annual Report from AFL-CIO Informative, Useful

Today’s post comes from guest author Rod Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

The AFL-CIO’s annual report about “the state of safety and health protections for America’s workers” has been written about in a previous year on this blog. The recently released 2015 version focuses in an in-depth manner on data from 2013 and includes around 200 pages of text, tables, details and information, along with a bit of jargon.

The report is extremely informative, and Nebraska and Iowa’s numbers will be examined in more detail in future blog posts, as these are states where the firm’s attorneys are licensed.

The report can also feel overwhelming once a person processes through the fact the each numeral on each chart represents the death of one person due to the workplace. There is also a ripple effect, as each person represented here had loved ones who both cared about and relied on that person. And for many involved, their lives changed drastically when their loved one died.

I appreciate the work, funding, thoughtfulness and effort put into compiling and analyzing the data, which includes a methodology section at the end of the report.

Here’s some sobering information from the summary.

“In 2013, 4,585 workers were killed on the job in the United States, and an estimated 50,000 died from occupational diseases, resulting in a loss of 150 workers each day from hazardous working conditions.

“Nearly 3.8 million work-related injuries and illnesses were reported, but many injuries are not reported. The true toll is likely two to three times greater, or 7.6 million to 11.4 million injuries each year.”

States with the highest fatality rate in the nation include a couple of relative neighbors: North Dakota and Wyoming. West Virginia, Alaska and New Mexico round out the top five. Lowest state fatality rates in 2013 were Hawaii, Washington, Connecticut and Massachusetts (tied) and New York and Rhode Island (tied).

Please contact an experienced workers’ compensation lawyer if you or a loved one is hurt on the job or has questions about job safety.

Helping_the_homeless.jpg

Poverty And Social Insurance

Today’s post comes from guest author Thomas Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.

My business-owning friends harp constantly about “entitlements,” which, they say, cost them money in taxes and premiums. I routinely reply that these programs are a social safety net, the small price we pay to live together relatively peacefully  in a “civilized” nation.

My friend and Iowa workers’ comp colleague Paul Mc Andrew sent me an email that sums up this concept succinctly:

Did you know that in 2013, there were more than 25 million reasons to give thanks for social insurance? According to Census Bureau data released this fall, more than 45 million people in the U.S., or 14.5% of the nation, lived in poverty in 2013. The good news? Three vitally important social insurance programs – Social Security, unemployment insurance (UI), and workers’ compensation – and a related program, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), kept the poverty rate from being much higher. Together, these four programs kept more than 25 million people out of poverty.

Workers’ Compensation alone lifted 87,000 people out of poverty in 2013, including:

  • 16,000 children; and
  • 60,000 non-elderly adults; and
  • 11,000 elderly adults aged 65+

−−Elisa Walker, National Academy of Social Insurance

We workers’ comp lawyers can only help one injured workers at a time, but collectively…..