Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation Benefits

According to a recent report from AZCentral.com, two police officers allege an insurance company contracted by the city has unjustly denied their respective workers’ compensation claims. As your Massachusetts workplace injury attorney understands, insurance companies routinely deny valid claims for their own financial benefit.

One of the workers is currently on unpaid leave and says that he is being forced to return to work before he is physically ready, because he cannot afford to care for his family without pay.

The officers suffered injuries in two separate accidents while on the job. One of the officers believes he was experiencing a celiac episode, so he went to the fire station to seek treatment. Walking through the door was the last thing he remembered. He woke up in the hospital and was told that he was found with his head and body pressed up against a wall. He suffered a vertebrae fracture and head injury.
Continue reading

Yang v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., a case from the Tennessee Supreme Court, involved an employee who worked for a car manufacturer on an assembly line. After working for a few years without incident, the employee injured his left shoulder.

As a result of this injury, he was placed on restricted duty at the factory and had a job doing light janitorial work and some production duties. While working, he injured his right shoulder as a supervisor who wanted him to work faster was yelling at him.

He continued to work his light duty job until he needed surgery on both shoulders. After the surgery, according to the court records, he felt that he could not return to work, as there was nothing he could do in his condition. He also testified to becoming very depressed as result of his injuries.

Our Boston workplace accident lawyers understand that an on-the-job injury can lead to depression in addition to the physical condition. In Yang, the company offered him a buyout, and he left his job. He then filed for workers’ compensation benefits under a permanent disability rating for both his mental and physical conditions.
Continue reading

Our work injury lawyers understand that preexisting conditions that are exacerbated by an on-the-job injury may require additional litigation.

State Accident Fund v. SC Second Injury Fund, an appeal argued in the South Carolina Supreme Court, involved a police officer who injured his knee while on the job. The claimant was treating his knee with non-surgical options, including injections of corticosteroids. He reached his maximum medical improvement (MMI) and was given a permanent disability rating of approximately 30 percent.

An MMI means that doctors have done everything feasible to treat an injury, and the cost of any additional treatment will outweigh any potential benefit. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Department of Industrial Accidents has created a guide for injured employees that explains this and other terms used.
Continue reading

Harris v. Millennium Hotel involved a worker who was shot and killed while working at a hotel in Alaska. The employer did not deny that the death occurred in the course of the worker’s employment, but when her spouse filed a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits, the employer denied the claim on grounds that they never received any proof that the deceased worker was legally married to the claimant.

As our workplace injury attorneys can explain, when a worker dies on the job, his or her surviving spouse may be eligible to receive workers’ compensation death benefits. This may also have an effect on your ability to file a civil negligence lawsuit.

In Harris, the claimant filed a notice that she was filing a challenge to the constitutionality of the state workers’ compensation statute on grounds that it was discriminatory against same sex couples who were not allowed to marry under state law.

The claimant submitted evidence to show that the couple had lived to together for many years and lived in every way as married couple, including becoming financially interdependent. The workers’ compensation board affirmed the denial of her right to death benefits, due to fact that they were not legally married, and could not have been legally married under state law. The board had no authority to rule on the constitutionality of the statute and chose not to do so.
Continue reading

Stevens v. S.T. Servs., an appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court, involved a claimant who began working at liquid storage facility in the late 1970s. In the mid-1980s, the claimant injured both shoulders and the year after his injury, his employer terminated his services.

For the next seven years after his termination, surgeons performed multiple operations on the claimant’s shoulders. During that period, the claimant applied for workers’ compensation benefits, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) awarded him benefits under a Temporary Total Disability (TTD) rating.

As your workers’ compensation lawyer can explain, a TTD rating is one of several classifications for benefits under a program administered by the Executive Office for Workforce Development for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

In Stevens, the parties entered into a settlement in the mid-1990s, whereby the claimant was to be awarded a disability rating of permanent and temporary total disability and found unfit for any type of employment.

Several years later, the claimant moved to Alaska and became a licensed plumber. He could not lift anything, but served as a consultant about plumbing issues. Eventually, he was offered a job as a consultant at a big box home improvement store, where he earned about $25 per hour.

He needed to return to Minnesota to undergo a medical procedure on his shoulders, and, when he was there, he had to meet with an investigator from the workers’ compensation insurance carrier. He disclosed his new job to the investigator. There was never any allegation that he attempted to commit any type of fraud with respect to his disability rating.
Continue reading

Most employers are required to carry workers’ compensation insurance under the law. Workers’ compensation is a program aimed at being a compromise between the needs of injured workers and employers. The program is designed so that workers with on-the-job injuries can get the financial compensation they deserve fast, while at the same time, protecting the employer from having to pay out large settlements that were not figured in their financial plans.

The workers’ compensation program was designed to cover not only medical bills, but also lost wages for workers who were injured on the job. In exchange for the ability to file a workers’ compensation claim, workers are precluded from filing a separate civil action in most situations. This is the benefit to the employer. In reality, many employers see a mandate to carry workers’ compensation coverage as a great compromise, and a few of them will do whatever they can to keeps costs down.

Our work injury lawyers understand how important it is to get your workers’ compensation benefits as soon as possible. Your family depends on your income and any unnecessary wait can be detrimental.
Continue reading

Our workplace injury attorneys understand that employers are interested in paying as little as possible for workers’ compensation insurance premiums.

According to a recent article in the Columbus Dispatch, the State of Ohio settled a lawsuit that had been going on for years over allegations that hundreds of thousands of employers were being overcharged for workers’ compensation insurance premiums.

According to reports, the state agreed to create a $420 million fund to pay claims from employers who were overcharged for workers’ compensation premiums between 2009 and 2011. This was slightly less than half of the $860 million that the judge ordered the state to repay. The state initially appealed this order, and the Court of Appeals reduced the amount to $670 million. A settlement was reached, and both sides are reported as being happy with the settlement agreement.

Since this case began, there have been major changes made to the state’s workers’ compensation program, including improvements in accounting methods and additional efforts to reduce work place accidents.
Continue reading

The New Mexico Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in Fowler v. Vista Care, holding that a worker was not limited in the amount of time during which she could receive compensation for a work-related injury.

Workplace accident lawyers know that while this decision doesn’t impact Massachusetts workers directly, state supreme court decisions are often carefully weighed by other jurisdictions when similar legal questions arise.

According to court records in this case, the worker suffered a back injury while working for her employer in 2003. That same year, she underwent back surgery. She was granted temporary total disability until three years later, when her doctor determined she had reached maximum medical improvement – or a medical improvement plateau for the foreseeable future. At that point, her benefits were terminated.
Continue reading

Federal law protects workers against retaliation in the event that they report misconduct, dangerous working conditions, or safety violations that can cause serious or fatal injuries. The U.S. Department of Labor has filed a lawsuit against a Massachusetts company that allegedly fired an employee for filing a safety complaint with OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration). The Department of Labor investigated the allegations after the firing and had enough evidence to pursue a case against the defendant company for retaliation.

Employers are responsible for ensuring the safety and well-being of employees. In addition to following OSHA policies and federal laws, employers cannot take retaliatory action against employees who wage complaints for safety violations. Our Boston workplace injury lawyers are dedicated to protecting the rights and security of workers throughout Massachusetts. We remain abreast of legal issues and developments that may impact workers’ rights.

The owner of the company denies allegations that he was retaliating against the employee and claims that the employee was fired because of poor performance. Complaints against the employee contend he was driving the truck and that he negatively represented the company and badmouthed the owners when he delivered their orders. The owner also alleges that the he had every reason to fire the employee and that the case is a waste of time.
Continue reading

Filing a workers’ compensation claim in Boston is typically considered the exclusive remedy an employee has in seeking compensation from his or her employer in the event of occupational injury or disease.

However, that doesn’t mean workers are stripped of all other options. In some situations, third-party litigation may be appropriate. If the accident occurred while you were at work, but as a result of negligence from another person or company, an independent lawsuit for damages might be the best course of action to protect you from damages.

A recent example played out before the Alaska Supreme Court in Conley v. Alaska Communications System Holdings, Inc.. The legal principles presented in the claim mirror many of those that arise in Massachusetts work injury lawsuits.
Continue reading