Your Social Security Benefits After The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) Decision

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

Nearly two months after the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Social Security Administration has announced that it will start to pay benefits to some individuals in same-sex marriages. In order to be eligible for benefits, these individuals must meet the same criteria as individuals in opposite-sex marriages, in addition to several other requirements.

Only applications for spousal benefits are being approved right now. Spousal benefits are payable to a spouse who either 1) did not work enough to be entitled to Social Security benefits or 2) worked enough to be entitled to Social Security benefits but would be entitled to a larger benefit on their spouse’s earnings record.  This is generally the case when one spouse earned significantly more than the other spouse over the course of their working lives. The individual on whose earnings record the claim is made (the number holder, in SSA’s terms) must also be entitled to old-age or disability benefits from Social Security. In order to receive spousal benefits, you must be at least age 62 and have been married to the number holder for at least one year.

The individual applying for benefits (the claimant, in SSA’s terms) must show that he or she was married to the number holder in a state that permits same-sex marriage and that the number holder is living in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage either 1) when the application for benefits is filed or 2) while the application is pending a final determination. It does not matter what state the claimant lives in. What matters for SSA’s purposes is the state the number holder lives in. This only matters when spouses live in different states.

Below is a chart from SSA that shows which states recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, and when those states permitted same-sex marriages.  If a state is not listed, it does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or permit same-sex marriages to be performed.

Before filing a claim for benefits or moving to a different state, you should consult with an experienced attorney or with the Social Security Administration to determine your eligibility for benefits.  As SSA continues to pay benefits to more individuals in connection with the Supreme Court’s decision, we will provide updated information regarding who may be eligible for these benefits.

State

Date Same-Sex Marriages from Any Other State Was Recognized

Date Same-Sex Marriages Were Permitted in the State

California

June 17, 2008 – November 4, 2008

June 26, 2013 – present

June 17, 2008 – November 4, 2008

June 26, 2013 – present

Connecticut

November 12, 2008

November 12, 2008

Delaware

July 1, 2013

July 1, 2013

Iowa

April 30, 2009

April 20, 2009

Maine

December 29, 2012

December 29, 2012

Maryland

February 23, 2010

January 1, 2013

Massachusetts

May 17, 2004

May 17, 2004

Minnesota

August 1, 2013

August 1, 2013

New Hampshire

January 1, 2010

January 1, 2010

New York

February 1, 2008

July 24, 2011

Rhode Island

May 14, 2012

August 1, 2013

Vermont

September 1, 2009

September 1, 2009

Washington

December 6, 2012

December 6, 2012

Washington, DC

July 7, 2009

March 9, 2010

 

ef33de78aae79361fb6c2650ad5a559d


Slow Recovery Affects Workers’ Compensation Benefits and Costs

Today’s post comes from guest author Kit Case from Causey Law Firm.

A Press Release by the National Academy of Social Insurance

 

WASHINGTON, DC – Workers’ compensation benefits declined to $57.5 billion in 2010 according to a report released today by the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI). The drop in workers’ compensation benefits was largely due to a 2.1 percent drop in medical benefits for injured workers. Employers’ costs for workers’ compensation also fell by 2.7 percent in 2010. As a share of covered wages, employers’ costs in 2010 were the lowest in the last three decades.

 

“As a share of covered wages, employers’ costs in 2010 were the lowest in the last three decades.”

 

“Employers’ costs as a percent of payroll declined in 43 jurisdictions,” said John F. Burton, Jr., chair of the study panel that oversees the report. “This decline is probably due to the slow pace of the recovery, with many jurisdictions still experiencing relatively high unemployment rates.”

 

Workers’ Compensation Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2010

Total

2010

Change   Since 2009 (%)

Covered workers (in thousands)

124,454

-0.3%

Covered wages (in billions)

$5,820

2.6%

Benefits paid (in billions)

$57.5

-0.7%

Medical benefits

$28.1

-2.1%

Cash benefits

$29.5

0.7%

Employer costs (in billions)

$71.3

-2.7%

Per $100 of Covered Wages

2010

Change   Since 2009 ($)

Benefits paid

$0.99

-$0.03

Medical benefits

$0.48

-$0.03

Cash benefits

$0.51

-$0.01

Employers’ costs

$1.23

-$0.06

Source: National Academy of Social Insurance, 2012.

 

The new report, Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage and Costs, 2010, is the fifteenth in the series that provides the only comprehensive data on workers’ compensation benefits for the nation, the states, the District of Columbia, and federal programs. 

 

“This report represents the first time the Academy has released employers’ costs by state.”

  

This report represents the first time the Academy has released employers’ costs by state. For a table showing employers’ costs for all fifty states and the District of Columbia, refer to Table 12 (page 34).

Most states reported a decrease in the number of workers covered but an increase in covered wages between 2009 and 2010. During the same period, the total amount of benefits paid to injured workers declined in 26 jurisdictions and increased in 25. As a share of payroll, benefits paid to injured workers fell by three cents to $0.99 per $100 of payroll in the nation.

The share of medical benefits for workers’ compensation has increased substantially over the last 40 years. During the 1970s medical benefits nationally accounted for 30 percent of total benefits, whereas in 2010 the share of benefits paid for medical care was almost 50 percent. Experts attribute this trend to the rising cost of health care.

adc1a8b55ba4b3f53ccea0de1a8b3dea



“I’m In It for the Money!”

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

Surprisingly, many employers and insurance companies actually believe workers hurt themselves on purpose or at the very least put themselves in positions where they think an injury is likely. We hear this a lot as a basis for not settling claims for existing employees. Employers are worried that it will encourage other employees to get injured as well. What does that say about the particular employer who believes this? Either they are downplaying lots of injuries or they truly believe employees are willfully getting hurt. 

The reality is that most of our clients come to us because their injury-related medical bills are not being paid or they’re not being paid for time off from work due to their injury.

In this age of limited, and in some cases very limited, workers’ compensation benefits, you would have to be an imbecile to actually believe people are willingly causing permanent injuries to themselves to cash in on the “windfall” that is workers’ compensation. Who would honestly trade even thousands of dollars for a lifetime of uncompensated pain and suffering? The reality is that most of our clients come to us because their injury-related medical bills are not being paid or they’re not being paid for time off from work due to their injury. The vast majority of them don’t even ask how much they could get for their injuries in their initial meeting with us, as I’m sure is the case with most workers’ compensation law firms. 

This is one of a long line of personal-injury myths perpetrated by the insurance industry to make filing a workers’ compensation claim a stigma. It’s similar to the one about “if you file a claim our premiums will go up and they’ll have to shut down the plant.” Shouldn’t the question really be: are we requiring too much physically of our employees, and if so, what can we do to make things safer? Instead, Continue reading »

29ae744e7565336ec0b50985b9c4ecd6


If You’re Going Out To Eat Check Out “Behind The Kitchen Door”

Today’s post comes from guest author from Jon Gelman, LLC – Attorney at Law.

For many celebrating the holiday season is inggo out to eat for an enjoyable experience. Unknown to many restaurant patrons are the problems of restaurant workers and include:  low wages, occupational stress and lack of medical benefits that requires restaurant workers to go to work sick.

Behind The Kitchen Door exposes the working conditions in the restaurant industry.

 “How do restaurant workers live on some of the lowest wages in America? And how do poor working conditions—discriminatory labor practices, exploitation, and unsanitary kitchens—affect the meals that arrive at our restaurant tables? Saru Jayaraman, who launched a national restaurant workers organization after 9/11, sets out to answer these questions by following the lives of ten restaurant workers in cities across the country – New York City, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Houston, Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, Detroit, and New Orleans. Blending personal and investigative journalism, Jayaraman shows us that the quality of the food that arrives at our restaurant tables is not just a product of raw ingredients: it’s the product of the hands that chop, grill, sauté, and serve it, and the bodies to whom those hands belong.

“Behind the Kitchen Door “ is a groundbreaking exploration of the political, economic, and moral implications of eating out. What’s at stake when we choose a restaurant is not only our own health or “foodie” experience, but the health and well-being of the second-largest private sector workforce—the lives of 10 million people, many immigrants, many people of color, who bring passion, tenacity, and important insight into the American dining experience.

Download the 2012 National Diners Guide – See how your favorite restaurant ranks

e5d7148cd06750776d62f9695bc2d7e3


Is Your Workers’ Compensation Check Late?

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

My work comp check was late or hasn’t come yet. Now what?

If you are entitled to workers’ compensation checks, and the insurance company has not paid them on time, you might be entitled to a penalty from the insurance company in addition to the amount that you are owed.

The penalties for late payments vary from state to state, but most states have laws to help workers when this problem arises.

In Nebraska, the work comp insurance company has 30 days to pay benefits from the day that it has notice of the disability, or 30 days from the day that the Court entered an Order, Award, or Judgment. If the insurance company does not pay the benefits within those 30 days, you may be entitled to Continue reading »

6877a4b69a1258521d16d7a070220e2e


How Apportionment Relates to a New Workers’ Compensation Claim

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

Can I get workers’ compensation benefits for an injury even though I had a past workers’ compensation claim?

The simple answer is yes. In nearly all instances, you would be entitled to full benefits for your new injury regardless of whether you have already experience a workers’ compensation injury in the past.

Apportionment:

 “Apportion” or “Apportionment” means that your employer is allowed to assign disability to a previous workers’ compensation injury to the same body part, which reduces the money benefits for your current injury. However, only under certain situations is your employer allowed to “apportion” benefits from your current injury to a past injury.

Specifically, in order to “apportion” your current injury to a previous injury (thereby reducing money benefits) there needs to have been a loss-of-earning-capacity evaluation for your previous injury. Often, this is not present. Even in rare situations where there was a previous loss-of-earning-capacity evaluation attributable to a previous workers’ compensation injury, your employer must still show Continue reading »

ef823a6cbd8d652a2c075e579d30e85f


Employee Termination Because of Facebook Comment Does Not End Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Today’s post comes to us from our colleague Jon Gelman of Jon L. Gelman, LLC.

An employee who was terminated because of comments made about her employer on Facebook has been allowed continuation of workers’ compensation benefits.

“Lawful termination, like fraud, cuts through everything; but the reasons for
firing here are murky. And whether it’s a legal termination or not isn’t a
question for this forum as workers’ compensation courts are not in the business
of determining whether a firing was appropriate. What is important here is
that termination from employment in and of itself does not end entitlement to
supplemental earnings benefits as set forth in the [Palmer v. Schooner ] case.
In the case at hand, [Ms. Miller] returned to work in a light duty status. She
worked for a short period of time until her termination on October 14, 2010.
She was terminated for violating a hospital policy by posting a comment on Facebook. 
Pursuant to Ms. Salutillo’s comments in the [CSPH] employee memorandum,
[Ms. Miller's] employment was terminated based on failure to uphold standards of
behavior. After her termination, [Ms. Miller's] treating physician took her
off work for a short period of time, but ultimately opined she could work light
duty.”

BRENDA MILLER v. CHRISTUS ST. PATRICK HOSPITAL

— So.3d —-, 2012 WL 5238000 (La.App. 3 Cir.), 2012-370 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/24/12)

Read More about Social Media and Workers’ Compensation

Jul 03, 2012
An injured worker was denied benefits when an Arkansas Court admitted into evidence Facebook pictures that were posted on line showing him drinking and partying. The worker had alleged that as a result of a hernia, 
Apr 13, 2012
Facebook’s new announcement today creates even a greater problem for workers’ compensation claimants. Providing even greater historical information about an unsophisticated Facebook user puts even more information, 
May 07, 2012
The announcement of Facebook to allow for the public listing of organ donors of it social media site, albiet with good intentions, raises concerns about the privacy of workers’ compensation claims as the organs could become 

c8f1417a320d02d7782028f930e04e70