Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Workers’ compensation claims that involve an on-the-job injury that occurred while driving in a vehicle tend to involve more complex litigation. In Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Ass’n of Mid-Ohio, claimant was a nurse who worked for an employer that provided in-home healthcare to patients.

Claimant began working for employer in November of 2006. On a typical workday, claimant would see multiple patients in their respective homes. She drove her personal vehicle when going to see her clients. She would stop in the office to pick up supplies, read her mail, and attend company meetings.

When she worked on the weekends, she was given paid mileage from her home to her first patient, driving to additional patients’ homes, and for her ride home after work. The company would subtract 24 miles and 30 minutes from each day’s earnings to account for the time spent driving to the office, even if she did not actually go to the office.
Continue reading

Gales v. Sunoco & Amer. Zurich Ins., a case from the Maryland Court of Appeals, involved claimant who was injured while driving a gasoline tanker truck for his employer in February of 2010. Following the accident, employer’s insurance company compensated claimant under a workers’ compensation benefits rating of temporary total disability from February through December of 2010.

Claimant requested that employer pay for additional temporary total disability benefits and for an evaluation by a pain management specialist. Employer denied employee’s claim.

At this point, employee filed a claim with the workers’ compensation commission and received an award of compensation, ordering employer pay for the additional benefits and the evaluation requested.
Continue reading

Gits Mfg. Co. v. Frank, a case from the Iowa Supreme Court, involved a claimant who began working for employer in 1997. She worked as a spot welder and on the assembly line. In February of 2006, claimant’s doctor diagnosed her with constrictive bronchiolitis causing pulmonary dysfunction.

Both claimant and employer stipulated that this was a work-related injury. Her doctor placed her on medical leave and recommended that she stop working for employer. Her doctor continued to treat her and concluded that she reached maximum medical improvement in March of 2009.
Continue reading

According to a recent report from 7 News Boston, federal legislators are increasing reporting requirements for employers in relation to fatal on-the-job injuries.

Under the new law that takes effect on January 1, 2015, employers must make detailed reports of fatal workplace accidents to the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Under the current law, these reports were only required if three or more employees were killed or hospitalized while at work. In the case of a fatality, the report must be submitted within eight hours of the accident.

The new legislation will also require businesses of any size to file a report within 24 hours of any accidents that result in serious injuries requiring hospitalization, even if the worker survives.

Specifically, the reporting requirement defines severe, but non-fatal accidents, as those requiring hospitalization, loss of eye, or amputation. OSHA stated that a severe workplace accident is warning sign that dangerous conditions exist that may require intervention by the agency.

As our Boston work injury lawyers understand, employers are hesitant to report injuries out of fears that OSHA will shut down the company, levy significant fines, or require costly changes in operation. As we have discussed in other blog entries, employers are often concerned with their bottom line far more than workers’ safety. It should come as no real surprise that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has raised concerns about this new law.
Continue reading

For the most part, courts have held that if a worker is hurt while participating in a voluntary but work-related event, injuries aren’t compensable under workers’ compensation laws. In weighing such a claim, courts will consider factors such as whether the function was truly considered voluntary, whether workers were paid and to what extent the employer benefited from the worker’s involvement.

Our Boston workers’ compensation attorneys know just because an employer formally labels a function “voluntary” doesn’t necessarily mean it is so, and there have been more than a few exceptions allowing for compensation for injuries sustained during work-related extracurricular activities.

A perfect recent example is in the case of Whigham v. Jackson Dawson Communications, before the South Carolina Supreme Court. Although this case took place outside the Massachusetts court system, the same general principles are still applicable. Both systems have found injuries are only compensable under workers’ compensation insurance when they occur during or arise in the course of one’s work duties.
Continue reading

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