Legal Corner

Workers’ Compensation 

WCAB does not have authority to overturn award of medically necessary housekeeping services – California

When housekeeping services are requested by a physician and are reasonably required for an injured worker, they qualify as medical treatment. As such, the Court of Appeals for the 2nd District ruled that if a physician makes a request for a medical treatment, an employer cannot deny it unless a utilization reviewer determines that it is medically unnecessary.

In Allied Signal Aerospace, Constitution State Service Company v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board and Maxine Wiggs, the injured worker was receiving housekeeping services twice a month, but the physician requested a change to every week. The company submitted the request to utilization review. The reviewer found the more frequent schedule was not medically necessary. However, the WCAB supported a judge’s ruling to submit the records to a registered nurse who had made an earlier assessment of need for review.

The 2nd DCA vacated the WCAB’s ruling noting that since there was no stipulation to displace the provision of housekeeping from the UR-IMR process, the WCAB had no jurisdiction to review the medical necessity and reasonableness of service.

Exclusive remedy bars personal injury claim by firefighter kicked in the groin by supervisor – California

In Tibbett v. Los Angeles County Fire Department an appellate court affirmed a jury’s ruling that a firefighter’s unintentional injuries were barred by the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation. The incident occurred when the firefighter complained to a supervisor about how a situation with a hostile victim was handled. The fire captain said he was showing a maneuver to keep volatile patients away by obstructing their vision, but the firefighter moved and he kicked him in the groin with a steel-toed shoe.

The firefighter had emergency surgery to remove his left testicle and underwent more surgeries that rendered him sterile. The court agreed with the jury, finding the fire captain did not intend to harm the firefighter; therefore, workers’ comp was the exclusive remedy.

Challenge to the presumption of correction for the opinions of EMAs rejected – Florida

In De Jesus Abreu v. Riverland Elementary School, the 1st District Court of Appeal rejected a constitutional challenge to the statutory presumption of correctness for the opinions of expert medical advisers (EMA). The employee suffered a compensable injury to her shoulder and an arthroscopic shoulder surgery was performed to address a partial rotator cuff tear.

While the physician deemed she had reached MMI, she continued to report pain and she sought care from an unauthorized orthopedic physician who recommended further surgery. The company authorized another orthopedist, who did not recommend further surgery. However, the employee obtained an IME from a doctor who thought surgery was appropriate.

Because of the conflicting opinions, a JCC appointed an EMA who opined that no further surgery was recommended or medically necessary. The JCC denied surgery because state statutes provide that the opinion of an EMA is presumed to be correct unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

The employee appealed, arguing that the presumption improperly usurps the rulemaking authority of the state Supreme Court and that the presumption interferes with the executive branch’s ability to fairly adjudicate workers’ compensation claims. The court disagreed.

Restaurant manager shot in off-hours robbery can receive benefits – Georgia

In Kil v. Legend Brothers, the Court of Appeals overturned a denial of benefits to a restaurant manager who was shot as he was arriving home from work with the day’s receipts, which he regularly reviewed when he got home. The worker lived with the restaurant owner and his coworker. When he arrived home with his coworker, they were attacked by three men who demanded money. When the attackers realized the worker had a gun, they fled, but shot him in the forearm and he has not been able to work.

Both an administrative law judge and later the state Board of Workers’ Compensation awarded him comp benefits, ruling that his injury arose within the scope and course of employment. However, a state superior court reversed, finding that he was not at work at the time of the armed robbery and shooting-that he was home and that he was shot because he had a gun, which “had nothing to do with performing his duties for his employer.”

The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting one of the worker’s key job responsibilities was to spend around an hour every day going over the restaurant’s daily sales, receipts, accounts and inventory and that he was continuing his duties as manager.

Insurer must pay for injuries despite misinformation in policy – Georgia

In Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bennett, several mistakes were made when an insurance agent took the company’s business information from its policy with a former insurer. She misclassified the company that was a construction company involved in greenhouse repair and maintenance as providing janitorial services and erroneously noted that employees did not travel out of state and that workers did not perform work above 15 feet. While the owner signed the policy, there was a dispute whether it was complete at the time.

When an injury that occurred out of state was denied, the company told the agent the policy had to be changed because most of its business was out of state. When the insurer learned more about the business operations it said it would not have issued the policy if the application had correctly stated that the company operated in 30 states because Grange Mutual was not licensed to issue policies in all of those states. It sent a cancellation notice but gave the company 90 days to find an alternative.

In less than 90 days, another worker was injured out of state, suffering extensive injuries in a truck accident. An administrative judge held that Grange Mutual’s policy covered the employee’s injuries and that by agreeing to pay for workers’ comp claims under the laws of Georgia, the Georgia-based company’s workers were covered even when out-of-state. Further, an appellate court held that Grange Mutual waived its void policy defense when, after discovering the inaccurate information on the application, it informed the company that its coverage would continue for 90 days. The court said that if the insurer “believed that the policy was void based on fraud, it should have immediately rescinded it.”

Borrowing employer’s immunity from tort liability not dependent on insurance – Illinois

In Holten v. Syncreon North America, an appellate court ruled that a temporary staffing service’s employee could not pursue a negligence suit against his borrowing employer for work injuries. The worker received comp benefits from the staffing agency for injuries resulting from a forklift accident, but filed suit against the borrowing employer, asserting its negligence had led to his injuries.

The state Workers’ Compensation Act provides that the lending and borrowing employers are jointly and severally liable for workers’ compensation benefits, but both do not have to provide the insurance. As long as one of the employers pays benefits, both have civil immunity. The immunity springs from the borrowed-employee relationship itself.

Employee can sue Canada – Massachusetts

Federal law immunizing foreign governments from liability does not protect Canada from being sued as an uninsured employer under the state’s workers’ compensation statute for injuries suffered by a consulate employee in Boston, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision. In Merlini v. Canada, the Court found that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides an exception to immunity for a foreign state that engages in a “commercial activity.” The court said Canada entered into a contract for commercial services by hiring Merlini and failed to carry workers’ comp insurance as required of commercial employers in the state.

Worker who resigned after injury can collect unemployment – Minnesota

In Interplastic Corp. v. Rausch, a long-time employee injured his back and was transitioned to a lower job but received the same wage and accompanying pay raises over the next three years. He was then notified his wage was being reduced to align with the position and he was ineligible for future raises. About the same time, the workers’ compensation claim was settled and he received a $25,000 payout and agreed to “voluntarily terminate his employment.”

When he applied for unemployment benefits, he was denied because he had voluntarily quit. However, a three-judge appellate court panel affirmed an unemployment law judge’s decision that a substantial pay reduction, the lack of future earnings potential, and the claim settlement allowed the worker to fall under the state’s statutory exception for unemployment eligibility.

Worker’s manufacture of meth does not forfeit comp benefits – New York

In Robert Stone v. Saulsbury/Federal Signa et al., an appellate court ruled that a worker’s conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine did not forfeit his entitlement to benefits for two industrial injuries. The court upheld the WCB ruling that the man who had been collecting indemnity benefits for a compensable injury prior to his conviction and incarceration did not violate state workers’ compensation laws when he became involved in the production of illegal drugs.

The insurer contended that the manufacture of methamphetamine constituted “work”. The court disagreed, “substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the conviction alone is insufficient to establish any work activity by claimant or that he received any type of remuneration.”

Denial of occupational disease does not prevent new theory of accidental injury – New York

In Matter of Connolly v. Covanta Energy Corp., an appellate court reversed the state Workers’ Compensation Board’s finding that a worker suffered from an occupational disease (allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis) and remitted the matter to the Board for further proceedings. However, this would not prevent the worker from arguing an accidental injury claim on essentially the same facts. After remand, the Board was free to consider the new theory for the claim.

Elimination of labor attachment requirement for PPD not retroactive – New York

In Matter of the Claim of Scott v. Visiting Nurses Home Care, a worker who was classified as having a permanent partial disability, was found to have voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market and benefits were suspended twenty-two years after her injury. In 2017, the law was amended to provide that proving attachment to the labor market was no longer necessary for permanent partial disability compensation.

After the amendment took effect, she filed a request for reinstatement of benefits. A law judge, the Board, and the Appellate Division’s 3rd Department all agreed that the amendment did not apply retroactively.

Failure to mention side business not fraud – New York

In Matter of Permenter v. WRS Envtl. Servs. Inc., a truck driver’s failure to disclose his involvement in an online and retail flower business was not the sort of misrepresentation that should disqualify him from receiving workers’ compensation benefits according to an appellate court ruling. The employee had freely admitted that he owned a company engaged in the flower business, but the employee did not consider it work because it was not profitable.

Termination of benefits OK for a minor physical deformity, but no physical impairment – Pennsylvania

In Paolini v. Delaware County Memorial Hospital, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board held that the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) did not err in awarding benefits to a nurse who sustained physical injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of a dog bite while performing a home visit. Her doctor provided unequivocal medical testimony that she had sustained PTSD as a result of her work injury, even though her Facebook page showed her swimming and parasailing.

However, the board reversed the WCJ’s denial of the employer’s termination petition, as the employer’s examining physician found that although the nurse had slight discoloration and subjective, mild numbness, she had fully recovered from the physical dog bite.

Injuries incurred on railroad bridge not covered by longshore comp – Virginia

In Muhammad v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a district court’s holding that the worker’s negligence claim was barred by the exclusive remedy under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). While working on a bridge that crosses a navigable river, a portion of the walkway collapsed beneath the employee and he sustained serious injuries.

He filed suit against the railway, asserting a negligence claim under the Federal Employers Liability Act, but the company argued the claim was subject to the LHWCA. The district court agreed, finding repairing and rebuilding the bridge was an “essential and integral element” of the maritime traffic flowing under the bridge, therefore, his work constituted as engaging in maritime employment.

Upon appeal, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s decision. It noted that the LHWCA requires employee work “upon navigable waters” and that a bridge would not be covered by the statute.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

HR Tip: Court ruling does not affect ACA obligations

The recent court ruling by a federal judge in Texas that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional, does not affect the coverage and reporting obligations for employers. The ruling is a declaratory judgment and not an injunction to freeze the ACA and most expect the case will make its way to the Supreme Court.

Similar to the past two years, the IRS has extended the original Jan. 31, 2019, deadline for employers to distribute 2018 Forms 1095-C or 1095-B to employees to March 4, 2019. The critical 2019 filing deadlines for forms that detail 2018 coverage are now as follows:

ACA Requirement Deadline
Paper filing with IRS Feb. 28
1095 forms delivered to employees March 4 (extended from Jan. 31)
Electronic filing with IRS April 1

Employers that file 250 or more information returns with the IRS must file the returns electronically. Because of the extension, the 30-day extension that would normally be available on a showing of good cause is not available – March 4 is a hard deadline.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

HR Tip: 12 tips to keep your holiday party under control

The holiday season is a time to spread cheer and a festive spirit, but some celebrations morph into legal nightmares or workers’ comp claims for employers. Here are 12 tips for a party that is fun and safe:

  1. Charge your leadership team with setting the tone for responsible and professional behavior.
  2. Limit or do not serve alcohol. Do not have an open bar. Close the bar at least one hour before the end of the party. Be sure that alcohol is served by a professional bartender or at a licensed establishment that knows when to stop serving an individual. Serve plenty of food. Arrange for no-cost transportation for any employee who should not drive home.
  3. Be sure workers understand that attendance is voluntary. This should be clearly stated in the invitation and all related communications.
  4. Hold after work hours and off site, reducing the likelihood the party will be perceived as work related.
  5. Don’t encourage attendance by either implying attendance will help the employee advance or that failure to attend sends the message the worker isn’t a team player.
  6. Avoid presentation of awards, bonuses or other recognition that suggest employees are there for business reasons.
  7. Be cautious about inviting vendors, clients or others with whom you have a business relationship.
  8. Invite spouses and significant others.
  9. Remind employees that normal workplace standards of conduct are to be respected. Parties, particularly when alcohol is served, can lead to sexual harassment or discrimination claims. Treat any discrimination or harassment claims seriously and conduct appropriate investigations.
  10. Don’t allow employees to post company party images/comments on social media outlets without having a policy in place.
  11. Be sensitive of language and decorations – don’t call it a Christmas party or invite “husbands and wives.”
  12. Discuss your exposure with your insurance agent.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

Things you should know

NLRB issues proposed rule on joint employers

As expected, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has announced publication of a proposed rule on joint employers. The rule will effectively discard the expanded definition of joint employer in the Browning-Ferris Industries decision during the Obama era and return to the much narrower standard that it had followed from 1984 until 2015. An employer may be found to be a joint-employer of another employer’s employees only if it possesses and exercises substantial, direct and immediate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment.

NIOSH publishes guide on air-purifying respirator selection

NIOSH has issued a guide intended to help employers select appropriate air-purifying respirators based on the environment and contaminants at specific jobsites.

Top trend in workers’ comp reform – legislation impacting first responders

According to National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), the introduction of legislation impacting first responders was the top trend in workers’ compensation reforms countrywide, although few bills have passed. In 2018, there were 103 bills dealing with first responders battling post-traumatic stress disorder or cancer, but only five bills passed. Washington and Florida both passed bills that would allow first responders with PTSD to file workers’ compensation claims under certain circumstances, and Hawaii and New Hampshire revised or enacted presumption bills for firefighters battling certain types of cancer. New Hampshire also passed a law that calls for a commission to “study” PTSD in first responders.

Worker fatalities at road construction sites on the rise: CPWR

A total of 532 construction workers were killed at road construction sites from 2011 through 2016 – more than twice the combined total for all other industries – according to a recent report from the Center for Construction Research and Training, also known as CPWR. In addition to the statistics, the report highlights injury prevention strategies for road construction sites from CPWR and several agencies.

State-by-state analysis of prescription drug laws

The Workers Compensation Research Institute published a report that shows how each of the 50 states regulates pharmaceuticals as related to workers’ compensation. Some of the highlights include:

  • 34 states now require doctors to perform certain tasks before prescribing
  • At least 11 states have adopted drug formularies
  • 15 states do not have treatment guidelines to control the prescription of opioids, and preauthorization is not required
  • In at least 26 states, medical marijuana is allowed in some form and nine of those states specifically exclude marijuana from workers’ compensation

Guide and study related to workers and depression

Workers who experience depression may be less prone to miss work when managers show greater sensitivity to their mental health and well-being, recent research from the London School of Economics and Political Science shows. The study was published online in the journal BMJ Open.

In March, the Institute for Work and Health published a guide intended to aid “the entire workplace” in assisting workers who cope with depression or those who support them.

11 best practices for lowering firefighter cancer risk

A recent report from the International Association of Fire Chiefs’ Volunteer and Combination Officers Section and the National Volunteer Fire Council details 11 best practices for minimizing cancer risk among firefighters.

NIOSH offers recommendations for firefighters facing basement, below-grade fires

The Workplace Solutions report offers strategies and tactics for fighting basement and below-grade fires, along with a list of suggested controls before, during and after an event.

Predicting truck crash involvement update now available

The American Transportation Research Institute has updated its Crash Predictor Model. It examines the statistical likelihood of future truck crashes based on certain behaviors – such as violations, convictions or previous crashes – by using data from 435,000 U.S. truck drivers over a two-year period.

This third edition of CPM includes the impact of age and gender on the probability of crashes. It also features average industry costs for six types of crashes and their severity.

State News

California

  • Governor signed four bills related to comp. A.B. 1749 allows the first responder’s “employing agency” to determine whether an injury suffered out of state is compensable. A.B. 2046 requires governmental agencies involved in combating workers compensation fraud to share data, among other changes to anti-fraud efforts. S.B. 880 allows employers to pay indemnity benefits with a prepaid credit card. S.B. 1086 preserves the extended deadline for families of police and firefighters to file claims for death benefits.
  • Governor vetoed bills that would have prohibited apportionment based on genetics, defined janitors as employees and not contractors, identified criteria doctors must consider when assigning an impairment rating for occupational breast cancer claims, called for the “complete” disbursement of $120 million in return-to-work program funds annually, and required the Division of Workers’ Compensation to document its plans for using data analytics to find fraud.
  • The Division of Workers’ Compensation revised Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule Drug List went into effect Oct 1.
  • Independent medical reviews (IMRs) used to resolve workers’ comp medical disputes in the state rose 4.4 percent in the first half of 2018 compared to the first half of 2017; however, in over 90 percent of those cases, physicians performing the IMR upheld the utilization review (UR) physician’s treatment modification or denial. – California Compensation Institute (CWCI)

Florida

  • Workers’ compensation coverage for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for first responders like firefighters, EMTs, law enforcement officers and others went into effect Oct. 1.

Indiana

  • Workers’ Compensation Board will destroy paper documents in settlements. If parties mail or drop off paper-based settlement agreements and related documents, it will trash them and notify the parties by phone or email to submit online. The board urges parties to follow the settlement checklist and procedure posted on its website.

Minnesota

  • The Department of Labor and Industry formally adopted a number of changes to fees for rehabilitation consultants.
  • Department of Labor and Industry approved rule changes that slightly increase fees for medical and vocational rehabilitation services, and increase the threshold for medical, hospital and vocational rehabilitation services that treat catastrophically injured patients.
  • Effective Jan. 1, the assigned risk rate, which insures small employers with less than $15,000 in premium, and employers with an experience modification factor of 1.25 or higher, will decrease 0.7%.

Missouri

  • A new portal from the Department of Labor offers safety data, video, and training programs.

New York

  • The Workers’ Compensation Board has launched its virtual hearings option for injured workers and their attorneys. For more information.
  • Attorneys or representatives are now required to check-in to all hearings using the online Virtual Hearing Center when appearing in person at a hearing center.

Virginia

  • The Department of Labor and Industry has issued a hazard alert warning of the potential dangers of unsafe materials handling and storage in the beverage distribution and retail industry.
  • The Workers’ Compensation Annual Report for 2017 shows claims and first report of injury are trending up, bucking the downward trend nationally. There has also been a big jump in alternative dispute resolutions.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

 

Legal Corner

Workers’ Compensation
Appellate court clarifies permanent disability rule – California

In Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board and Dean Fitzpatrick, the issue revolved around whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board applied the correct standard when calculating a worker’s permanently disabled rating. The Board had affirmed an administrative law judge’s ruling of 100% permanent disability, based on Labor Code Section 4662.

Upon appeal, the Appellate Court noted that Section 4662 of the law does not provide for permanent total disability separate from Section 4660, which governs how the finding and award of permanent total disability shall be made “in accordance with the fact” as provided in 4662. It annulled the Board’s decision and remanded the issue for further proceedings.

Federal court upholds use of state worker classification test – California

In a blow to the California Truckers Association (CTA), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal deregulation of the trucking industry does not pre-empt the state agency from applying a common law test, called the Borello test, because the law only pre-empts state rules that are “related to prices, routes, or service.” Named for a 1989 state Supreme Court case, the Borello test is the standard used to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. California Trucking Association v. Su, No. 17-55133

Reasonableness of refusal to accept job considered in nixing TTD – Florida

In Employbridge v. Rodriguez, the 1st District Court of Appeal overturned an award of temporary total disability benefits to an injured worker who refused a job offer because the commute was too long. In this case, a worker and her husband both worked for Employbridge, a staffing service provider. When they received a new assignment in Largo, they moved to Largo from Tampa. A few years later, the worker fell at work and injured her knee. Initially, the company accommodated her work restrictions with a clerical position at their Largo offices. She was then offered a similar position at the Tampa office, but turned it down.

A Judge of Compensation Claims found the commute between Largo and Tampa justified the decision to refuse the position and awarded TTD benefits. However, in a split decision the 1st District Court of Appeals overturned the award.

Worker wins retaliation case for filing a workers’ compensation claim – Michigan

In Mitchell v. Dore & Associates Contracting (D & A), a worker broke his leg in a work-related accident and received benefits. D & A would hire workers for projects and lay them off when the job was complete. Workers believed if they were injured on the job, they’d never be asked to work again.

After the worker recovered, a former supervisor asked him to work on a project. While working he heard his supervisor speaking with the risk manager for D & A. The worker alleges the supervisor said the risk manager no longer wanted Mitchell on the project and he was never recalled to work.

While the Court of Appeals noted that causation between the workers’ comp claim and layoff is difficult to prove, it found that the trial judge had properly kept information about criminal convictions and excused work absences from the jury and upheld the jury verdict that D & A had unlawfully retaliated.

Damages of $873,000 upheld in negligence suit against supervisor – Missouri

While the statute generally immunizes co-employees from civil liability for a workplace injury, if a co-employee engaged in a negligent act that purposefully and dangerously increased the risk of injury to another employee, the suit can proceed. An employee of a staffing agency was working for a manufacturer and operating a lamination machine. He noticed glue on the bottom rollers and notified the lamination line supervisor, who removed a metal grate and allegedly told the worker to clean the bottom rollers with a wet rag. (The company prohibited workers from running the machine without the guard installed, and the machine displayed a warning against operation without it.)

The worker’s thumb was pulled in and crushed and he filed a personal injury suit against the supervisor and the manufacturer of the laminating machine. He settled with the machine manufacturer, and, while the other case was pending, the supervisor died, so a defendant ad litem was then substituted. Based on the jury’s findings and the settlement with the machine manufacturer, the trial judge awarded $873,000 in damages. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision.

Invalid arbitration agreement means discrimination and retaliation suits can proceed – Missouri

In Caldwell v. UniFirst Corp, a worker was diagnosed with lumbar disc protrusions and herniations and given work restrictions, which the company accommodated initially. His doctor imposed more restrictions and his supervisor allegedly objected to a request for time off and repeated requests for accommodations. After surgery, the company did not allow him to return to work, but extended his medical leave, then fired him.

The worker filed suit against his former employer and supervisor, alleging discrimination on the basis of his disability and retaliation for pursuing a comp claim. The defendants moved to compel arbitration, noting that the former worker had signed an employment agreement that included an agreement to arbitrate any employment-related claims.

A trial judge denied the motion to compel, finding that the arbitration agreement was invalid and the Court of Appeals agreed. For an agreement to be enforceable each party must provide something of value to the other – some form of “consideration,” which was lacking in this situation.

Employer must reimburse firm for third-party settlement of over $1 million – Nebraska

In 2008, an explosion at a Conagra Foods Inc. plant in Garner, North Carolina, killed three Conagra employees and injured more than 60 others while the food company was installing a new water heater. The company that provided a contracted engineer to oversee the project, Dallas-based Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., was sued and settled the claims after failing to obtain contractual indemnification from Conagra.

The engineering company sued Conagra and a jury in district court awarded Jacobs the full amount of the settlement payments, $108.9 million. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting the food company’s “negligence was the proximate cause of Jacobs’ damages” stemming from the lawsuits following the explosion.

Untimely claim denied since employer had no knowledge of injury – New York

In Matter of Taylor v Little Angels Head Start, a worker filed a comp claim more than one year after the employer had put her on medical leave. She claimed her bilateral knee condition was caused from walking between the employer’s work sites and the repetitive stair climbing associated with her job duties. A workers’ comp judge awarded benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board found she had failed to give her employer timely notice of injury.

The Board can waive the thirty-day notice if notice could not be given, the employer had knowledge of the injury, or the employer is not prejudiced. While the employer knew of the knee condition, she did not tell her employer it was work-related for over a year.

Scheduled loss of use award can be adjusted for prior injuries – New York

In Matter of Genduso v. New York City Department of Education, a worker injured his right knee and filed a comp claim. He had had two previous injuries to his right knee, which resulted in loss of use awards of 20% and 12.5%. An expert opined that there was a 40% loss of use and the judge deducted the prior awards, leading to a 7.5% scheduled loss of use. The Workers’ Compensation Board and Appellate Court affirmed the award.

Worker’s tort claim against insurer for allegedly providing false information to the police can proceed – North Carolina

Although a workers’ compensation insurer generally enjoys the same immunity from tort liability afforded the employer, there are limits to that immunity. In Seguro-Suaraez v. Key Risk Inc. Co., a worker suffered a serious brain injury in a work-related accident and suffers from significant behavioral and memory deficits. While the insurance company found the injuries compensable, it denied a request for an occupational home therapy evaluation. Over a six-month period, the company video-taped the worker, edited nine hours of surveillance to 45 minutes, and showed to a neuropsychologist, who said the worker was exaggerating his symptoms.

The Industrial Commission issued a decision in the workers’ favor and the insurance company conducted an independent medical exam, which determined the symptoms were valid. In spite of this, the company directed its investigator to convince the Lincolnton Police Department to bring criminal charges against the worker – that he was obtaining his workers’ compensation benefits by false pretenses. This led to his arrest and jailing and indictment on 25 counts of obtaining property by false pretenses and one count of insurance fraud. The charges were dismissed after a psychological examination to determine competency to stand trial noted conditions consistent with his documented medical history.

The Court of Appeals upheld a trial court ruling that the worker can pursue malicious prosecution, abuse of process and unfair and deceptive trade practices claims, but found the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the bad faith and civil conspiracy claims.

Return-to-Work notice requirements clarified – Pennsylvania

The Workers’ Compensation Act requires an employer provide a worker with “prompt written notice” when the employer receives medical evidence that the worker is able to return to work in any capacity. Although “prompt” is not defined, the notice must give the worker a reasonable period of time before the employer requests a modification of benefits.

In County of Bucks v. WCAB (LePosa), the worker received a notice of her ability to return to work along with a letter offering her pre-injury position at the same wage, which had no expiration date. When she did not return to work, the county filed for a suspension of benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board said the county was required to prove the worker had received a notice of her ability to return to work before sending her the job offer. The Commonwealth Court disagreed since the offer had no expiration date, noting a notice of ability to work sent with a job offer letter does not, as a matter of law, render the notice not prompt.

Worker with lifetime medical care award must be weaned from opioids – Tennessee

In C.K. Smith Jr. v. Goodall Buildings Inc., an injured worker with an award of lifetime medical care from his employer received high dosages of opioids to manage pain. Several years after the injury, the doctor expressed concern about the possibility of addiction. About the same time, the employer requested a Utilization Review (UR) of the employee’s medications and prescriptions and the UR Board recommended weaning down. The employee then requested a new physician panel, which a trial court approved. However, the Supreme Court’s special workers’ compensation appeals panel reversed that determination, stating that it would violate state code and remanded the case to trial court.

High court finds injury an advancement of preexisting condition and overturns disability award – Tennessee

In Thomas D. Flatt v. West-Tenn Express Inc., a worker fell when a coworker dropped his side of an oil-drip pan, which they were carrying together and claimed to injure his neck and left arm. The worker was in a work-related auto accident one year earlier, but maintained he was fully recovered. The trial court found the new injury was compensable and the impairments did not stem from the auto accident and awarded a 44% permanent partial disability rating.

On appeal, the trucking company had the employee undergo examination by four doctors. Upon reviewing the medical testimony, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel with the Supreme Court overturned the trial court ruling. It determined this was not a new, distinct injury, but an advancement of a preexisting condition.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

HR Tip: New FMLA forms available from DOL

The Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) certification forms and notices are now valid until Aug. 31, 2021. DOL didn’t make any substantive changes to the forms, other than the new expiration date. Here they are:

Notices

Certification forms

The DOL must submit its FMLA forms to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval every three years. OMB review is required to ensure the FMLA certification and notice process isn’t too bureaucratic.

While the forms aren’t mandatory, many employers use them. Some employers copy and paste the DOL form into their own form, replacing the DOL logo with their own.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

Are Employees Covered when they leave the state? Maybe Not!

You have a workers’ compensation policy that covers your employees. So when your employee travels for work, you assume that they are covered should they be injured while “on the job”. Assuming wrong, and you may be opening up your own checkbook. Where the employee goes to, and how long they are there, does have barring on if your employee’s injury is covered.

On Monday, March 12th, 2018, I posted my monthly Legal Corner blog post about recent case rulings that impact employers when it comes to HR & Safety Compliance as well as Workers’ Compensation. After every blog post I usually receive a dozen or so calls or emails from people that were looking for more information on the subject of the post, however, in this post’s case, I have received a hundreds of questions, from employers to insurance agents, stemming from one specific Workers’ Compensation Case Law Ruling in that Legal Corner post.

Here is the case I referenced: Employer discovers lower quote does not mean same coverage when out of state accident is not covered – Indiana

Custom Mechanical Construction (CMC) is an Indiana-based mechanical contractor but is authorized to do business in Kentucky. Since its establishment in 2005, it had used the same insurance agent and the same carrier for workers’ comp. In 2015, the agent solicited bids from other carriers and secured a $3,000 lower quote. The company claims that it was led to believe that the coverage was the same. When a CMC worker was injured on a job in Kentucky, the carrier filed suit in a federal trial court in Indiana seeking a judicial determination that its policy does not cover claims from Kentucky. CMC counterclaimed that the carrier wrongly and unreasonably denied coverage, and that the broker is liable for failing to procure adequate coverage. The judge found that CMC had no viable claim for bad faith nor negligence and that the broker was not an agent of the carrier. Accident Fund Insurance Co. of America v. Custom Mechanical Construction.

So, does a workers’ compensation policy have a coverage territory/travel restriction? The answer is yes/no.

The Employers Liability portion of the policy provides coverage for suits brought in the USA, its territories or possessions, or Canada. Sounds fair, and aligns with your business auto and general liability policy definitions of a coverage territory. If you are doing business only in the USA and Canada, you might think you are OK. If your employee travel outside of the USA and Canada, even for a day, you need to make sure you have Foreign Voluntary Workers’ Compensation Coverage, and should also make sure you have appropriate liability coverages as well.

However, the Workers’ Compensation portion of the policy does not define a territory, so that sounds even better does it not?  Not really. It does something that should cause all employers to ask more questions. A Workers’ Compensation policy provides statutory coverage for an employer for the specific state(s) listed in 3. A. on the declaration page of the workers’ compensation policy. So two little, abbreviated letters, in one big, multi-page policy actually defines where you have coverage

If you have physical locations in MD, NY and PA, and MD, NY, and PA are listed in 3.A. of your policy, you think you are all set. But what if your employee travels to NJ, VA, DC, NY or OH?

What if you have a telecommuter that works from home in another state? What if you have a employee that lives in OH but works from your PA location, but then travels back into OH for business purposes? This is where things actually get confusing.

With 50 states, and several territories including PR & DC, explaining all possible variations would cause this to be an extremely long blog post, so I am not about to address every issue. Therefore, I am going to point out the key issues you need to look into to make sure you are properly covered. The best thing to do, is to ask questions.

  • Effective Date of the Policy – The workers’ compensation policy defines that you have coverage for the states listed in 3.A. of the declaration page.  It also defines that if on the effective date of the policy.  If you have employee(s) working in another state not listed in 3.A. on your actual renewal date, or have an ongoing operation in another state, you do not have coverage in that state during the remainder of that policy year. It does have a provision to allow you 30 days from the effective date to inform the insurance company.  If you forget, you have an issue.
  • With 50 states, and several territories including PR & DC, each state and territory has their own rules. The two key provisions you need to understand are:
    • Extraterritoriality – what your state’s workers’ compensation laws allows in terms of coverage when an employee leaves the covered state.  A state may provide coverage for an unspecified period of time, or it might allow for a limited number of days such as 30 or 90 days.  If you meet the extraterritoriality provisions, your employee may be covered when out of the covered state
    • Reciprocity – is whether or not the state’s workers’ compensation laws, of the state that the employee is in when injured, allows allow the your policy to provide coverage for the employee in that state while there.  A state’s law may allow another states coverage to ally for an unspecified period of time, or it might allow for a limited number of days such as 30 or 90 days, or not allow any coverage to extend to that state.  Therefore, if that state does not allow your coverage to extend to the state, you would need to add that state as a covered state in 3. A.
    • For example, due to OH reciprocity with PA, a PA based construction employee can work in OH for up to 90 days in any 12 month period before the employer would need to purchase OH workers’ compensation coverage for that PA employee. (Note: an OH BWC employee has recently told me this is now 30 consecutive days.) However, if that PA employee travels to a NY jobsite, even for a day, the employer would need to purchase NY workers compensation due to the NY reciprocity rules.  A similar rule applies to an construction employee going to work in FL.
  • All States Endorsement – Many employers believe they have coverage in every state as some insurance agents leave them to believe that since there may be a provision that says something like “all other states…” is listed in Other States Coverage of 3.C. on the declaration page.  There is no such thing as a “All States Endorsement”. If you look at it closely, at best, it will state “All other states except 3.A and monopolistic states”. Plus, once again, with 50 states, and several territories including PR & DC, each state and territory has their own rules.
    • Other states (“3.C.”) coverage allows the your workers’ compensation policy to comply with the statutory benefits required by the other state where an employee is injured but in which you do not currently have on-going operations, and do not plan to have on-going operations during the policy period.  If you did, doing so would require that state to be scheduled as a primary coverage state in 3. A. Employees injured while working in a listed 3.C. state will receive the benefits under that state’s law if made necessary by law or court decision. Basically, the workers’ compensation policy responds and pays benefits in listed 3.C. states just as if the state was scheduled under 3.A.
    • Monopolistic States – OH, WY, WA, ND – are states that the only way to provide coverage in that state in section 3 of a policy is by purchasing coverage from that state’s workers’ compensation bureau.  No insurance company can provide coverage in those state, however, your states’ extraterritoriality or that monopolistic state’s reciprocity may allow for temporary coverage.
    • However, do not assume that if a state is listed in 3.C. that you have coverage as the listed state my not allow that due to reciprocity rules.  I point out once again, that NY will require a contractor to have NY in 3.A., and not 3. C. for even 1 day of work.
    • Although there might be a small charge on your policy, listing your bordering states, or ones you frequently travel to, might be a good idea.
  • Telecommuting employee – if you have an employee that lives and works from home in another state, although you as an employer do not have a physical location in that state, you do have an ongoing operation in that state.  Therefore, you need to add that state to your policy and list it in 3.A.
  • Employee Residing out of state – you may have an employee that lives in one state, and commutes to your state to work.  If they are injured in your state (listed in 3.A.), than your workers’ compensation policy will respond.  However, if that employee needs to travel back into their state of residency for business purposes, most likely their state’s laws will supersede your state’s laws, or the employee may chose to file for that states benefits especially if they are higher than in your state.  Either way, you may need to have coverage in any state that an employee both resides and works in.
  • Subcontractors
    • Should you hire a subcontractor that is based out of another state, you need to make sure that they have coverage in your state.
    • If you are hiring a subcontractor to work for you at a job in another state, you need to make sure you have coverage in 3.A of that state.  If that subcontractor somehow ends up not having workers’ compensation coverage, you as the hiring “general” contractor would be responsible to provide the statutory coverage in that state.

I cannot spell out every variable that you may be thinking of when it comes to your operations and employee travel, the main point of this post is help to create more awareness that you should not assume that your workers’ compensation will cover your traveling employees. You should speak with a Certified WorkComp Advisor, or an experienced agent, and make sure you get your answers in writing.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

Things you should know

The importance of contractor selection and oversight

The Chemical Safety Board has published a new Safety Digest highlighting insufficient safety requirements in contractor selection and oversight. The digest summarizes separate CSB incident investigations and recommendations from 2007 and 2011 in which the agency concluded that inadequate contractor selection and oversight contributed to a combined 10 fatalities and four injuries.

New hazard alert and toolbox talk on opioid-related overdose deaths in construction

In an effort to raise awareness of opioid-related overdose deaths among construction workers, the Center for Construction Research and Training, CPWR, has published a hazard alert and toolbox talk on the topic. The hazard alert and toolbox talk are available in English and Spanish

ISEA/ANSI 121-2018 first in the industry to address tethering practices

The International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) developed the first industry standard to reduce the risk of dropped objects in industrial and occupational settings. The standard, ANSI/ISEA 121-2018, American National Standard for Dropped Object Prevention Solutions, sets the minimum design, performance, labeling, and testing requirements for tethering practices.

The standard contains four active controls, which are:

  • Anchor attachments
  • Tool attachments
  • Tool tethers
  • Containers (buckets, pouches)

ISEA/ANSI 121-2018 is available online from ISEA.

CSB issues investigation update, animated video on Wisconsin refinery explosion, fire

The Chemical Safety Board has released an update of its investigation into an April 26 explosion and fire at the Husky Energy refinery in Superior, WI, as well as an animated video that explores the cause of the incident.

State News

California

  • The Labor Enforcement Task Force (LETF) issued 26 orders shutting down unsafe machines or operations at workplaces it inspected during the fiscal year 2017-2018 and found that 93% of businesses inspected were out of compliance with labor laws.

Florida

  • The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) is recommending a 13.4% decrease in rates, the second straight year that the rating organization has recommended a reduction in the state.

Illinois

  • Governor vetoed a bill that would have amended workers compensation law in relation to fees and electronic claims.

Minnesota

  • Department of Commerce has approved a 1.2% increase in the overall average pure premium level, effective Jan. 1.

Nebraska

  • Workers’ Compensation Court has redesigned its website, offering the Google platform for forms and distribution of court news. Previously bookmarked links to the court’s website will no longer work, so users are encouraged to delete their old links, then find the updated pages and bookmark them for future use.
  • Hospitals and insurers may now file diagnosis-related group (DRG) reports through the Workers’ Compensation Court’s web application.

North Carolina

  • Industrial Commission announced a $36 increase in the maximum weekly workers’ compensation benefit, starting Jan. 1. The maximum benefit will rise from $992 for this year, to $1,028.

Tennessee

  • The NCCI has proposed a statewide reduction of 19% for average voluntary market loss cost levels. By industry, contracting saw the greatest decrease of 20.7%, office and clerical was next at 20.6%, goods and services at 19.7%, manufacturing at 18% and miscellaneous at 16.8%. The new rates, which are under review, would become effective March 1, 2019.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

Legal Corner

ADA
Failure to accommodate is costly for employers

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Linda K. Atkins v. Dolgencorp L.L.C., dba Dollar General Corp., a federal appeals court affirmed a jury verdict of more than $277,000 to a former diabetic Dollar General worker. She worked the register and was often alone, so she could not leave her station when she experienced a low blood sugar episode. Her manager refused to let her keep a bottle of orange juice at her register, so when she had an attack she took a bottle of juice from the store cooler and drank it, later paying the $1.69 she owed for each bottle and told her manager.

She was fired for violating Dollar General’s “grazing policy,” which forbids employees from consuming merchandise in the store before paying for it. The appeals court affirmed the jury awards of $27,565 in back pay and $250,000 in compensatory damages, and the court awarded her lawyers $445,322 in attorney’s fees and $1,677 in expenses. The jury found Dollar General failed to provide reasonable alternatives to keeping orange juice at her register.

In Stanley Christie v. Georgia-Pacific Co., Ace American Insurance Co., director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Program, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco awarded permanent total disability to a man who injured his back working for a large paper company that failed to prove that they provided the employee with adequate accommodations after returning to work. While the company assigned him to a less-demanding warehouse position, the position required some lifting, which was difficult for him.

When he learned that the company was eliminating its early retirement program, he decided to retire because he did not feel he could work in pain for another six years. About two years later, his treating physician said he had reached maximum medical improvement, and he filed a claim seeking permanent total disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, for which he was eligible.

The DOL’s Benefits Review Board, denied the claim, arguing his loss of wages was due to retirement, not the work injury. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit unanimously reversed, noting that his inability to work pushed him to retirement and the company had failed to provide suitable alternative work and had not documented any accommodations.

Workers’ Compensation
Injured worker cannot sue utilization reviewer – California

In King v. Comppartners, Inc., an utilization reviewer denied a treating physician’s request to continue prescribing Klonopin, a psychotropic drug, for an injured employee. The injured worker argued that the reviewer owed him a duty of care and had caused additional injuries by denying the request without authorizing a weaning regimen or warning him of the possible side effects of abruptly ceasing the medication. When he stopped taking the medication, he suffered four seizures.

The case found its way to the state Supreme Court, which found that utilization reviewers, in performing their statutory functions, effectively stood in the shoes of employers. As such, they were provided with the same immunity from tort liability as employers.

Safety consultant owes duty of care – California

In Oscar Peredia et al. v. HR Mobile Services Inc., parents filed a wrongful death claim against HR Mobile Services Inc., a workplace safety adviser for the employer of their son, who died in a work-related accident. The 5th District Court of Appeal found that HR Mobile agreed to assist the employer in carrying out its workplace safety obligations, and accepted a role in conducting safety inspections and safety training. As such, it can be held liable for injuries the third party suffers as a result.

Public employer can fire an injured worker who cannot perform essential job functions – Massachusetts

In Robert McEachen v. Boston Housing Authority (BHA), a carpenter for the Boston Housing Authority was injured and placed on FMLA and medical leave. About a year later, a termination hearing was held with the union and the employee and it was concluded that “he is unable to return to work and cannot perform the essential functions of his job.” The employee did not disagree and argued he could return to work in a modified duty capacity, supervising other carpenters. Such a position did not exist.

When he was terminated, he appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which upheld the BHA decision, noting the employee was unable to perform the essential functions of the job. A three-judge panel of the state appellate court affirmed.

Decision not to use handrail nixes comp claim – Minnesota

The Supreme Court ruled that an employee who fell down a flight of steps while at work is not due workers compensation because she chose not to use a handrail. In Laurie A. Roller-Dick v. CentraCare Health System and SFM Mutual Cos., the employee was leaving work, carrying a plant with both hands,when she fell down a flight of stairs and fractured her ankle. While she argued that her shoe stuck on the non-slip treads on the stairs, the compensation judge held that the injury did not arise out of employment because she failed to establish that the stairs were “more hazardous than stairs she might encounter in everyday life or that her work duties in some way increased her risk of falling as she descended them.”

While it was true that failure to use the handrail increased her risk of falling, there was no work-related reason not to use the handrail. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals overturned the judge’s ruling, arguing that stairs in the workplace are inherently hazardous. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and reinstated the ruling of the compensation judge.

Teacher cannot sue school for injuries incurred when breaking up a fight – Minnesota

In Ekblad v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 625, the 8th U.S. District Court of Appeals ruled that workers’ comp exclusive remedy bars a teacher from suing the school after he was seriously hurt breaking up a student brawl. The employee argued negligence and negligent supervision as well as failure to provide a safe workplace and a lenient policy toward minority students’ violent misconduct.

The court found that none of the three relevant exceptions to the exclusive remedy provision – the assault exception, the intentional act exception, and the co-employee liability exception – applied in this case.

Employer rebuts 100% industrial loss because employee has marketable skills – Mississippi

In Bridgeman v. SBC Internet Services, a worker suffered a compensable injury, was unable to return to his job that involved climbing utility poles, and he was terminated by his employer. Under law, there is a presumption of 100% industrial loss when the worker proves he can no longer perform his usual employment. This presumption is rebuttable, if the employer can prove the employee could earn the same wages in another position.

If the employer successfully rebuts the presumption, the employee will not recover for a 100% industrial loss of use, but receives a recovery based on the greater of his losses from the medical impairment or the industrial loss-of-use rating. Since the employer presented evidence that the employee had a computer science degree, had been a teacher, and could perform medium to heavy work, an appeals court upheld lower court decisions that granted a 50% industrial loss of use of his arm.

Subject-matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time – North Carolina

In Burgess v. Smith, a young woman who sold cleaning products door-to-door was killed in a single car accident, driven by her co-worker. Her mother filed a wrongful death suit against the driver and her employer and neither responded to the summons. A trial judge entered a default judgment against the defendants for more than $2 million. Five months later, the employer filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, arguing that she was an employee (although he argued earlier she was an independent contractor) and that the superior court lacked jurisdiction over the claim.

The court of appeals overturned the superior court judge denial, noting that subject-matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time, even after the default judgment. The court remanded the case with instructions for the judge to determine if there was an employer-employee relationship.

Employee cannot sue employer for failure to provide a stress-free environment – North Carolina

In Jones v. Wells Fargo Co., a former employee argued that the bank and her supervisor failed to provide her with a safe working environment free from mental stress or anxiety and aggravated a pre-existing mental condition, which they knew about. While she argued that the exclusive remedy of workers’ comp did not apply because of “egregious and extreme conduct,” the court disagreed.

Parking lot injury compensable – Pennsylvania

In Piedmont Airlines v. WCAB (Watson), an airline employee fell into a pile of snow in the employee parking lot and broke his finger. The employee parking lot, which was owned and operated by the Department of Aviation, required an identification card for entry and the employer had issued one to the employee.

The Commonwealth Court noted that when an injury does not take place while performing job duties, it is compensable if the injury occurred on the employer’s premises, the worker’s presence on the premises was required by the nature of his employment, and the injury was caused by the condition of the premises or by operation of employer’s business. The court found that all three factors were met and, therefore, the injury was compensable.

Failure to accept modified duty means benefits can be adjusted – Pennsylvania

In Pettine v. WCAB (Verizon Pennsylvania), an employee was struck by a car when marking the road and suffered compensable injuries. He later requested that the claim be expanded to include his back and shoulder. When he declined an offer of a modified job that met his physical restrictions, vocational background, and geographical area, Verizon sought to modify his benefits.

The case went through several appeals, but in each case, the employee’s petition was denied and Verizon’s was granted.

Compromise & Release (C & R) agreement may not be used to avoid paying third party fees – Pennsylvania

In Armour Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Comp, the terms of a settlement included that the company pay for all necessary medical treatment. Many years after the injury, the company requested a Utilization Review (UR) of a newly prescribed topical cream, which was determined to be reasonable and necessary treatment.

The company then entered into an agreement with the employee that stated its liability for his medical expenses did not include any past, present or future costs for any compounded prescription cream. Several months later, the employee filled another prescription for the same cream, and the company refused to pay the more than $6,000 bill.

The court explained that the C & R bind each other, but cannot release them from liability to an entity who is not a party, in this case, the pharmacy. An employer can challenge a provider’s treatment as neither reasonable nor necessary, only through UR, and the company had not challenged the second prescription.

Benefits for volunteer firefighter overturned – Pennsylvania

In East Hempfield Township v. WCAB, a long-term volunteer firefighter was diagnosed with cancer four years after taking the job with the township. Several years later he filed for workers’ compensation benefits, asserting that his cancer had been caused by his exposure to carcinogens while volunteering for the township.

The case went through several appeals with varying decisions related to whether adequate notice of the claim had been properly given. The burden of proof is on the worker to show that notice was issued within 120 days of the injury, or the date upon which he knew, or should have known, he had a potential claim.

While the employee was diagnosed years earlier, he argued he did not know of the causal link between his cancer and firefighting and filed within 120 days when he received a doctor’s letter noting the connection. The Commonwealth Court found that the relevant inquiry was not when the employee actually knew of the work-relatedness of his injury, but rather when he should have known the work-relatedness through the exercise of reasonable diligence. The case was vacated and remanded.

High court upholds total disability award for trucker with pre-existing degenerative disc disease – Tennessee

In Wesley David Fly v. Mr. Bult’s Inc. et al., the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel with the Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court ruling that a trucker’s total disability was caused by a workplace injury, not the pre-existing degenerative disc disease, which was discovered at the time of the injury. The court noted that the law requires employers to “take an employee as he is,” and “all reasonable doubts as to the causation of an injury and whether the injury arose out of the employment should be resolved in favor of the employee.”

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

Things you should know

Opioid spending down but topical medications up

A report by Coventry Workers Comp compared its 2017 data on managed claims, representing 77.6% of total comp prescriptions, and unmanaged claims. Overall drug utilization in comp was down in 2017 – especially in opioids and compounds medication, an overall industry trend – with 5.9% drops in managed claims and 7.4% in unmanaged claims.

However, topical medications prescribed in the unmanaged category of claims jumped 9.8%, compared with a 6.5% drop in the managed category. This was driven by “high-dollar, private-label topical analgesics marketed directly to physicians’ offices… contributing to the significant rise in unmanaged topical utilization per claim – demonstrating the need for continued focus on moving these transactions.”

Safety standard for wind turbine workers

The American Society of Safety Professionals has published the first U.S. industry consensus standard written specifically for the construction and demolition of wind turbines.

White paper suggests Medicare Set Asides greatly inflate costs

A new white paper produced by Care Bridge International, suggests that conventional Set Aside practices greatly inflate costs to claims payers, by as much as doubling the cost. The company is a data analytics firm, that uses a massive claims database to estimate the true exposure of future medical treatment and costs in Medicare Set Asides for workers’ compensation claims.

Health care workers, PPE and infection control: Study finds failures to follow protocol

Health care workers may be contaminating themselves and their work environments by neglecting to use personal protective equipment and follow preventive protocols, according to a study from researchers at the University of Michigan and the University of Utah. The study was published online June 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

CPWR offers skin cancer prevention tips for outdoor workers

Workers who spend all or part of their days outdoors have an increased risk of developing skin cancer, the Center for Construction Research and Training (CPWR) cautions in a recently released hazard alert.

Highly repetitive work in cannabis industry increases risk for musculoskeletal disorders

Employers in the marijuana industry should provide safeguards to protect workers from repetitive stress injuries, NIOSH states in a recently released Health Hazard Evaluation Program report.

European Commission adopts new rules on pilot mental health requiring airlines

Three years after the Germanwings crash in which a pilot deliberately flew a jet into a mountainside, the European Commission has adopted new rules on pilot mental health requiring airlines for the first time to carry out a psychological assessment of pilots before they hire them.

States bolster whistleblower protection

An analysis by watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) found that most states have expanded their whistleblower protection laws over the past 12 years, including 10 states that have done so in their most recent legislative sessions. The PEER analysis includes a report card detailing where all the states rank in different categories.

State News

California

  • Cal OSHA stronger enforcement has led to more citations and higher fines. In 2016, it inspected 813 businesses, finding 93% of them out of compliance, issuing 2,736 citations, 15% of them serious, all totaling $2.5 million in fines – nearly double the amount for the same number of citations from two years earlier.
  • Although workers’ compensation insurance rates have dropped 22% since 2014, the state still has the highest rates in the country, representing one-fifth of the premium collected nationwide with only 11% of the national workforce, according to a report released recently by the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau.

Indiana

  • A new procedure for submitting settlement documents to the Workers’ Compensation Board took effect Aug. 1 and will become mandatory Sept. 1. All settlement agreements and proposed orders, as well as supporting documentation, should be submitted to WCB electronically in a PDF format. WCB has provided a checklist of elements that should be included, or not included, in settlement documents.

Pennsylvania

  • The Governor introduced opioid prescription guidelines in a booklet to “help health care providers determine when opioids are appropriate for treatment of someone injured on the job.” It is one of 11 guideline booklets on the subject.

North Carolina

  • After three years of litigation, the new ambulatory surgery center fee schedule became effective June 1. The new rules.

Tennessee

  • Strict new claims-handling standards took effect Aug. 2, the first revision to the standards since they were enacted almost 20 years ago. The new rules will require greater attention to detail, better communication with injured workers, and low error rates on electronic data submissions.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com