Ventura Personal Injury Lawyer

Durabrand DVD Players Recalled By Wal-Mart

Chrissie Cole — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:34:00 GMT

Wal-Mart Stores, in conjunction with the CPSC, announced a voluntary recall of 4.2 million Durabrand DVD Players because they can overheat, posing a fire and burn hazard.

On August 20, 1.5 million silver Durabrand DVD Players were recalled.

To this date, there have been 14 reports of the recalled DVDs overheating, seven of which resulted in fires that caused property damage.

The recalled DVDs were sold in pink, purple and silver. The following UPC codes and model numbers are involved in the recall:

Silver: UPC 1799901002, Model No. 1002

Pink: UPC 1799934100, Model No. 1002 PINK

Purple: UPC 1799932100, Model No. 1002 PUR

Consumers should stop using the recalled DVDs and return it to the nearest Wal-Mart for a refund.

Consumer Information: Contact Wal-Mart Stores at (800) 925-6278 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit www.walmartstores.com

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

New Legislation That Would Give Same-Sex Couples State Granted Benefits that Married Couples Enjoy May Include Workers’ Compensation Protections

James Cool — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:29:21 GMT

Just in case you’ve had your head in the sandy beaches of California over previous months, it’s important to understand some background about gay marriage initiatives in our state. In November, the state’s Proposition 8 passed with a bare majority, representing 52% of the vote. The proposition banned same-sex marriage in California after the California Supreme Court's landmark 4-3 ruling on May 15 that overturned a ban on same-sex marriage. This month, groups on both sides of the controversial issue gathered outside the courthouse as the Supreme Court held a hearing about what to do about the marriages that had taken place before the voters banned same-sex marriage. It is likely that the Supreme Court will allow those already wed to remain married, but it’s unlikely that the court can do more. Although voters may have an opportunity to turn over the initiative in 2010, many same-sex couples and their supporters may consider other legislation that may impact benefits for those couples, including workers’ compensation. Such legislation could expand on Justice Joyce L. Kennard’s observation that the Proposition took away the “label” of marriage.

An example of such new legislation, the Seattle Times reports, is likely to win the support of Washington’s legislators and may grant the same state-granted benefits to same-sex couples that married couples enjoy. Among these benefits is workers’ compensation, which would be provided to domestic partners who have to care for a partner injured on-the-job. The measure passed through Washington’s Senate late Tuesday night and is expected to clear the House. However, Washington has been behind California in terms of building a “slate of rights” and it seems unlikely that California’s Supreme Court will strike down Proposition 8. Nevertheless, once the court makes its ruling, legislators may turn to new efforts to give domestic partners in the state access to benefits like workers’ compensation and recognition for leave-time. If the legislation in Washington does succeed, we may see similar legislation in California that might impact your own access to workers’ compensation if you live in a domestic partnership.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by James Cool

Economic Woes and Recession Continue to Dominate News Cycles – But How Can a Workers’ Compensation Claim Impact Your Home

James Cool — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:28:33 GMT

For many workers, an injury on the job can be the difference between making it from one paycheck to the next, and not making it at all. In a troubled economy like ours, TIME reports that jobless claims are at their highest level since October of 1982, topping 5 million for the first time. It seems that the news about cuts and layoffs is unending, reaching from the NFL to textile factories, banks, and manufacturers of not-to-long-ago popular big-ticket items. The economy has everyone spooked. But what’s more, it has injured workers on edge more than others. At times, an injury on the job can require some time off for treatment and convalescing. While an employer cannot fire a worker for having filed a workers’ compensation claim, many are afraid that other reasons will be manufactured and scared employers will take advantage of “one less mouth to feed.” This is especially troubling given that the “dismal news” that Time reports shows no sign of slowing. Over 600,000 jobs were cut in January alone, and February’s numbers aren’t any better. No one can tell what March, or the markets, will bear out. In addition, home prices continue to slide and remain a vacant source of help for homeowners that just a few years ago enjoyed a fair amount of equity.

This may leave you wondering...is there any good news that an injured worker can turn to? Afterall, an injury on the job not only brings with it an emotional and physical stress component, it also brings economic stress. These stressors workers should not face alone. If you’ve been injured on the job, don’t suffer in silence – studies show that support from colleagues and management can speed recovery. In addition, if your employer is considering a furlough for employees, you may be able to arrange your furlough days to coincide with recovery. Finally, if your ailment is causing you to face troubles with housing costs, there may be hope for you among the recently passed legislation that allows homeowners to restructure and change their mortgages. Visit the Department of Housing & Urban Development website if you are afraid of losing your home. Even if you aren’t having difficulties paying mortgages now, if you suspect you might as a result of a workers’ compensation claim or on-the-job injury, there may be options. The Department of Housing and Urban Development reminds you not to stick your head in the sand – even if the economic news may make you want to do just that. Instead, reach out for support and gather information. As the recession deepens, more and more programs and legislation is forming to help workers who need a hand.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by James Cool

California Attorney General Cracking Down on Workman’s Compensation Avoidance Scams

James Cool — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:27:54 GMT

California’s Attorney General, Jerry Brown, has been cracking down on employers and others who illegally avoid carrying workman’s compensation insurance to save money. The Los Angeles Times reports that Brown has been targeting a scheme that encourages small businesses to endow workers with bare titles and worthless stock holdings in order to classify them as “corporate officers.” Under this scheme, the company can avoid buying costly worker’s compensation insurance for the workers, saving a mint. This practice is common among employers engaging in what Brown classifies as an “underground economy” wherein companies try to get ahead by not paying workers' compensation premiums or payroll taxes that fund state disability and unemployment insurance programs. In a time when worker’s compensation claims have been on the rise in California and state coffers aren’t as full as they used to be, this kind of scheme is especially underhanded. In addition, Brown points out that it intentionally misinterprets state law.

That is the allegation that Brown has made in the state’s suit against Contractors Asset Protection Assn. Inc. (ConAPA) of Rancho Santa Fe and its founder-president, Eugene J. Magre. The suit seeks a permanent injunction to force an end to the scheme, as well as $300,000 in civil penalties. Brown argues that California state law does not exempt company officers who are also the sole shareholders of a corporation from being covered by legally mandated workers' compensation insurance. He explains: “you can't simply call a security guard a vice president and avoid complying with the law through a sophisticated and fraudulent scheme.” But this is not what ConAPA has told its clients – instead, Brown alleges that ConAPA has told its clients quite the opposite – that they can easily avoid tens of thousands of dollars in workmen’s compensation premiums. In exchange, employees are getting the short end of the stick – in exchange for worthless titles and shares of stock – they are left without protection. Meanwhile, employers engaging in the scheme pocket the saved expense. ConAPA seems to have taken advantage of the desperate situation that some companies started facing in 2003, when workers compensation premiums skyrocketed, leaving ConAPA with clients looking for an easy way out. Most of the clients ConAPA suggested the scheme to employed workers in injury-prone industries, including housekeepers, security guards, roofers, maintenance personnel and cooks. It’s no surprise that Attorney General Brown has targeted ConAPA given that its advice may have led a number of employers to leave their workers without protection.

But this is not the first time that Brown has taken on this kind of scheme. In 2007, Brown sued PacifiStaff, a company out of Anaheim that claimed to be “the antidote to workers’ compensation.” After the suit, the company agreed to stop marketing its program, one that was eerily similar to ConAPA’s.

If you have signed paperwork with your employer that has given you a title and empty shares of stock rather than protection under a workers’ compensation program, you may end up having to fight for coverage in court down the line. Employers aren’t completely off the hook just because they have participated in the scheme; some end up in court. California’s specialized courts dealing with workers’ compensation are not often sympathetic to employers who have engaged in such selfish cutting-of-corners and acceptance of advice like ConAPA’s. Nevertheless, it may be much more difficult for an injured employee to get coverage for an on-the-job injury if the employee has participated in the scheme. If you have experienced an on-the-job injury and are having difficulty getting coverage for any reason, but especially if your employer engaged in this kind of scheme, you may want to consider getting assistance from an expert.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by James Cool

Lowenthal Goes After Loophole: New Bill May Prevent Some Insurance Companies From Breaking Promises

James Cool — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:34:51 GMT

Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal is a state assembly member who introduced a bill on Monday that would make it more difficult for insurance companies to retroactively deny worker’s compensation claims. The bill, assembly bill 361, attacks a loophole in state law. The loophole currently allows for insurers to refuse payment for medical services and treatments that have already been approved. This is especially difficult for workers that are not able to return to work quickly – workers left to cover expenses that they were led to believe would be covered face additional hardship in recovering from an injury on the job. Will Shuck, Lowenthal's chief of staff, explained that he was surprised at the current state of the law, and remarked that changing it was “about fairness.” He also stated that "What surprised Bonnie, me and everybody else, is that [the insurance companies] can say no [to payment after saying that they’ll cover it]." The lack of fairness is even clearer when comparing worker’s compensation coverage to coverage under a private insurance claim – private insurance companies are required to pay after telling an insured that their medical expenses will be taken care of. Many insureds rely on that, and reasonably so. There should be no less of an expectation when the compensation is owing due to a worker’s compensation claim. If the loophole is not closed, the approval that doctors are required to get from an insurance company before treatment is almost meaningless. Lowenthal captured this fact herself, stating: “if healthcare providers can't rely on the pre-authorization system, there is little reason for having such a system in the first place.”

Currently, doctors call for approval...and they may get it to treat the worker...but then the worker may be stuck with the bill. In a time when worker’s compensation claims are on the rise, it is important that the loophole is closed and insurance companies are prevented from giving insureds the proverbial kick while they are down. Insureds have no reason to oppose the legislation, but it will be important that anyone who might someday wish to file for worker’s compensation support the bill. Even if you do not currently work or have a position that is eligible for workman’s compensation, it’s impossible to tell if you will be. Getting hurt at work always seems to be an outside chance. On the other hand, it may be easy for you to think of someone that has been hurt at work and had to file a worker’s compensation claim. Or may be facing that situation yourself. In either event, we are all invested in increasing protections for people, rather than allowing the insurance companies to step on the little guy as they reach for record profits...even in a recession. If you’d like to voice your support for this bill, please click on Lowenthal’s name at the beginning of this article and then the link that says “Contact Us” on the menu on the left hand side.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by James Cool

Managing Workman’s Compensation Claims in a Recession: A Growing Challenge

James Cool — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:35:33 GMT

With economic woes taking the forefront in most news reports and conversations at the dinner table, it is no surprise that workman’s compensation claims have risen in correlation with layoffs. Some workers may attempt to remain on leave from a position and continue to collect worker’s compensation rather than return to an uncertain, and economically impacted, workplace. Others that have been laid off have filed claims afterward, seeking to use workman’s compensation as a way to make the ends meet after being laid off. There is some concern among employers and managerial staff that workers may attempt to draw out workman’s compensation claims when jobs have been downsized or might be eliminated. This growing challenge for employers and managers was supported by February’s job reports, which indicated an increase in claims.

The current recession is the longest one in 16 years – with unemployment rates being reported around 7.6%. About 600,000 jobs were lost in January alone. In a time where employers are concerned about staying afloat, many of them fail to realize that they may face increased liability for compensation claims as a result of the market’s condition.

State Division of Workers’ Compensation spokeswoman Patricia Ortiz-Wong said claims for workers’ comp have steadily declined in the past eight years, from 931,710 in 2001 to 553,770 in 2008. That trend is not expected to continue in the face of the current recession. Figures from the state also show that the number of claims climbed dramatically from 738,311 in 2000 to 931,710 in 2001, another recessionary period. One claims manager, Mary Anne Hernandez from Pan American Insurance Agency, Inc., predicted that claims and risk managers would see claims go “through the roof.” But other risk managers, such as Dave Dolnick from Brady Cos, a La Mesa Construction Company, was certain that most employees would resolve their claims as soon as medically possible. However, there are legitimate concerns about the extension of worker’s compensation claims. “What we have observed, both somewhat with our own [limited] claims and also in chatting with ... peers, is that claims that are otherwise legitimate become much more difficult to resolve in this kind of a market, when the injured worker doesn’t have the option of a job to go back to,” Dolnick said.

New and reopened claims can be especially problematic to assess given these circumstances – even when the claim is legitimate and not solely the result of fear of job loss, downsizing, or a shaky market. This means that claims and risk managers are bound to be more vigilant than in more prosperous times. Businesses may reevaluate and extend their own insurance coverage, but it is more likely that businesses may revise and revisit job descriptions. Risk and claims managers may also be notified to require additional documentation and approach claims with increased skepticism. All of this means a harder road towards coverage for those with legitimate claims. If you have had a claim recently, it may be helpful to consult an attorney. Additionally, you may want to review and keep on hand a current copy of your job description, especially if you’ve heard that your employer is considering changes.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by James Cool

California Court of Appeals Finds That Worker Is Not Limited To Workers’ Compensation and Upholds Jury Award of $1 Million

James Cool — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:28:45 GMT

Workers' compensation statutes in most states limit a worker's remedies for work-related injuries to a workers' comp claim against the employer. This limitation is often referred to as the “exclusive remedy provision.” The provision prevents workers who are injured on the job from filing suit and seeking compensation against their employers and co-employees. As a result, personal injury suits for harm that is caused in the workplace typically involve situations where there is intentional harm or where the worker is injured by the negligence of a "third party" - a person or entity which is neither the worker's employer nor their co-employee. Typically, the “exclusive remedy provision” only applies where the employer carries insurance that will provide injured workers with compensation for medical care, lost wages, and other damages. But even where an employer carries insurance, and a worker is harmed on the job, the law has carved out specifics about when a person is and is not at work, whether an injured worker was injured in the scope of their employment, and thereby – whether or not the “exclusive remedy provision” applies.

California’s Second District Court of Appeals recently heard a case that turned on the issue of whether or not workers compensation was the “exclusive remedy” available to an injured worker. The worker, Eugene Duffy, was assaulted by a co-worker in August of 2004. Mr. Duffy filed suit in an attempt to hold his employer, Technicolor Entertainment Services, Inc. responsible for negligently retaining and supervising the co-worker that attacked him. He pointed toward a pattern of violent threats and verbal attacks in alleging that Technicolor Entertainment Services should have fired the co-worker before he caused any harm. In response, Technicolor argued that the “exclusive remedy” rule pre-empted Mr. Duffy's lawsuit because the attack grew out of, and was incidental to, his employment. The court disagreed, stating that Mr. Duffy wasn’t injured in the scope of his employment – in part, because he was attacked as he stepped out of his car at work and in part because he was not performing work for his employer at the time that the attack occurred. The court then upheld the finding of the jury that awarded Mr. Duffy $1 million and agreed that Technicolor had a heavy hand in Mr. Duffy’s being injured. If the court had found that the “exclusive remedy” did prevent him from collecting more than workman’s compensation, his award undoubtedly would have been much less.

It is almost always beneficial to work with an attorney, when trying to figure out whether or not workers' compensation is the "exclusive remedy" for injuries which may have been fully or partially caused by a third party.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by James Cool

What the Tort Reform Folks Don’t Tell You…

James Cool — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:57:47 GMT

Rush Limbaugh will not mention it on his radio program and Bill O’Reilly will deny its truth, but the latest data shows that the cost of insurance to employers is declining and so are the costs of employee medical benefits. Contrary to conservative myth, litigation is not driving up the cost of insurance and more tort reform legislation is not needed to stem the tide of ever-increasing insurance premiums. The fact is costs are going down.

Risk and Insurance Magazine recently released a report evaluating the effect of 2003 workers compensation system reforms. Risk evaluates the passing grade received by California’s workers compensation system given by the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers Compensation. Risk explains that:

“The CHSWC is a joint labor-management body created by the Legislature in 1993. The commission is charged with examining the health and safety and workers comp systems in California and recommending administrative or legislative modifications to improve their operation. As part of its mandate, the CHSWC published the report card”

Risk evaluated the data within the report and concluded that the cost of workers compensation continues to fall. The study revealed that the average rate of workers compensation premium per $100 of payroll is $2.40 which is lower than premiums were in 1994. The study attributes much of the success in lowering costs to the 2003 reforms which “were aimed at controlling medical costs, updating indemnity benefits and improving the assessment of permanent disability.” The 2003 reforms focused heavily on structural and systemic changes which lowered costs from within through deregulation and modifications to the way insurers and doctors did business, not tort reform.

The study also found that:

“Most injury costs appear to be leveling off…..after the reforms, the average costs for all of the types of injuries declined from 2004 to 2006, with the exception of psychiatric and mental stress. From 2006 to 2007, researchers said the average cost for some types of injuries, such as carpal tunnel/repetitive motion injuries, back injuries, and psychiatric and mental stress appeared to be leveling off. At the same time, slip and fall injuries increased, and other cumulative injuries decreased slightly.”

Tort reform advocates, many of whom were proponents of the 2003 reform, may interpret this data to mean that further legislation is needed to cure remaining problems. However, this is misleading. The data as interpreted by Risk reveals that the current reforms have worked and that many of the fears and concerns which prompted the 2003 reforms have been allayed and no further legislation is needed.

As recently as 2006, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger praised the 2003 reforms. His press release celebrating the anniversary of the reform legislation notes that that changes reduced costs by getting injured workers the immediate treatment they need to get back to work faster. In other words, even the conservative “governator” concedes that a proven method of lowering insurance premiums and health care costs to employers is by reforming and optimizing the way big insurance and large employers do business. Oftentimes, these simple reforms are overlooked in the debate over tort reform with proponents decrying “run away juries” and “predatory lawsuits,” rather than focusing on the real, underlying causes of increased insurance costs.

For a copy of the full, very long report card you may visit this link

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by James Cool

California Workers Face a Furlough

James Cool — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:30:09 GMT

The Silicon Valley Mercury News reports that a Sacramento judge has given California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger the go-ahead to furlough hundreds of thousands of California government employees for two days a month. Originally, unions had brought legal actions alleging that the Governor had exceeded his power. Under California law the Governor is typically required to negotiate significant changes in pay for state employees with the Legislature. However, the Hon. Patrick Marlette, found that California’s overwhelming budget crisis justified the Governor’s decision, giving it proper legal authority. No doubt, the court considered the impact of the furloughs which will save the state a projected 1.3 billion dollars. Sadly, this is cold comfort for the more than 250,000 Californians who will see a 9% reduction in their annual pay for this fiscal year as a result of the furlough. The furlough is scheduled to begin by early February and may last until the middle of 2010.

At present, the furlough is being cast as an alternative to massive lay-offs. In fact, for many Californians not working in the public sector, lay-offs are already an unfortunate reality. Although, help may be on the way if the house-approved stimulus package is signed into law. The more than 800 billion dollar stimulus is slated to create 4 million jobs, with 800,000 of those in California alone. However this job growth will not be fully realized until the end of 2010. Until then, Californians will likely still continue to cope with job loss and economic downturn.

The furloughs are not unique to California. The nationwide recession has prompted many other states to consider and implement work furlough programs either state-wide or in various state departments. In many states, employees who suffer a loss of income as a result of a furlough may be eligible for unemployment benefits for the time they are furloughed. For more information, please visit the website for your state’s department of labor. If you have questions regarding unemployment benefits and/or feel you have been wrongfully denied unemployment insurance, you are encouraged to seek out an attorney experienced in handling unemployment cases.

Finally, because the current economic crisis has produced reduced revenues for many companies, lay-offs and terminations are on the rise. If you feel that you have been wrongfully terminated for cause ( “fired”), you are encouraged to seek out an attorney with experience handling these kinds of cases. Some employers may purposefully terminate an employee who is salaried at a higher rate than others or who may no longer be needed on “trumped up” or untrue bases to avoid that employee collecting unemployment benefits and thus driving up the employers unemployment insurance premiums. If you feel you have been the victim of this, or any other kinds of discrimination, you should seek the advice of an attorney.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by James Cool

Insurance Commissioner Rolls Back Regulations that were Enacted to Protect Disabled Workers as Democrats and Disability Lawyers Voice Fears

James Cool — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:23:41 GMT

Disability insurance policies are sometimes provided as part of an employment package, but individual disability insurance policies are also sold to people who do not have group disability insurance coverage available through their employers. These insurance policies are part of an entire class of protections that employers and individuals can purchase, which generates big business and a need for oversight to protect consumers. Regulations handed down by the state and federal government are generally administered and developed by the Insurance Commissioner of the state. California’s Commissioner Insurance, Steve Poizner, has recently come under fire by his predecessor, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, for proposing regulation changes that will weaken consumer protections.

Those changes include rolling back regulations that were meant to prohibit insurers from reducing group disability insurance benefits to account for pensions, workers' compensation payments or wages that the policyholder might receive. Poizner countered the criticism and concerns about less protection for workers by explaining that offset clauses that reduce benefits in disability policies are “already illegal” and that rolling back the regulations was “the essence of cutting red tape.” This raises questions about why Poizner felt that the changes were necessary, especially when many are calling for legislative action in other areas. Many believe that the disability insurance providers may have the effect of harming the foundation the state has for controlling offsets. Without the regulations, it may be more difficult for the state to restrain insurance companies looking to reduce their exposure when workers are disabled and file a claim.

Poizner’s predecessor, a Democrat, and some attorneys who deal with disability insurance issues say that insurance companies will “do what they want” and that this would be a “disaster for policy holders.” In a time where the removal of regulations makes people think of the failure of the business and accounting sectors, and places the name of Enron on the lips of concerned parties, many question whether there will be severe problems on the horizon once the regulations are rolled back. Garamendi warned that “some of the biggest scandals in the last decade took place in the disability sector: denial of claims, denial of coverage and using offsets...All sorts of things were going on to deny benefits to policyholders, so I wrote regulations to deal with that.”

With those regulations going back, disabled workers may wait with bated breath to see the effects it will have on insurance coverage and claims. If you have been disabled at work and are having difficulty or concerns related to your insurance coverage, you may want to speak to an attorney. An attorney may also be able to assist you if your insurance company uses potentially illegal offsets to reduce your payout following a disability claim.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by James Cool