Ventura Personal Injury Lawyer - Workplace Injuries

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

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

California Labor Commission Goes After Employers for Failing to Provide Workers' Compensation Insurance

James Cool — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:51:09 GMT

The California Department of Industrial Relations reports that the California Labor Commission has spearheaded an investigation into two bay-area construction companies for failing to obey a stop order and for failing to provide worker's compensation insurance.

California Labor Commissioner, Angela Bradstreet is quoted as saying:

Under California law all employers must carry workers’ compensation insurance...by not doing so, employers operating illegally create an unfair competitive advantage over those who provide coverage to their injured employees. These illegal operations have a negative impact on our state’s economy and they do not provide the protection legally afforded to California Workers.

Mehdi Karimi, doing business as Struct-Tech Group, Inc., and Philip McCarthy, doing business as Glenside Construction, were cited by Bradstreet during inspections on Oct. 15 and were each issued a stop work order for not having workers’ compensation. The next day, in a follow-up visit by investigators with the Labor Commissioner’s Office, both companies were found to be illegally continuing to employ workers without the proper coverage. Both cases were immediately referred to the District Attorney’s Office for prosecution.

The San Francisco D.A. investigated the matter and issued warrants for the arrest of both men on December 26, 2008. Both owners later turned themselves in and they both face court dates this January.

Karimi and McCarthy will also face civil fines for their actions. Marketwatch.com reports that:

Karimi, based in Berkeley, was assessed a $2,000 penalty for having two employees on the job in violation of the stop work order, and McCarthy, located in San Francisco, was assessed a penalty of $5,000 for having five employees on the job in violation of the stop work order.

Folks can learn more about the California Labor Commissioner, by visiting their web site at www.dir.ca.gov/dlse. Employees that have work-related questions or complaints can call the California Workers’ Information Hotline at 1-866-924-9757.

If you've been injured on the job and/or have been denied worker's compensation coverage, please contact an attorney immediately. It is critical that you contact an attorney familiar with worker's compensation claims. For more information, continue browsing here at InjuryBoard.com or if you are a California resident visit www.rkmlaw.net.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by James Cool

New Year, New Laws....Does Your Company Need a New Policy?

James Cool — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:50:03 GMT

A new law prohibiting texting is in effect in California as of the new year. Texting on cell phones or PDA devices while driving will now result in steep fines and penalties. However, the new law may also have implications for employers. Employees that carry cell phones, walkie-talkies, or PDAs for work may be tempted to use them on the road. Many may not know that sending a message, even at a stop sign, can put the employer on the hook as well as the employee. The doctrine of vicarious liability may allow an employer to be held liable for the negligent actions of an employee – such as causing an accident while texting. An employer is even more likely to be held liable if the negligent act, in this case, texting, was done to serve the employer’s purpose. If a driver sends a text or replies to a message from a client, the employer may be stuck with some of the consequences.

In order to protect themselves, one of the things employers may consider doing is adopting new policies that address the new law. Employers could write specific “texting-while-driving” bans into their policies which address the use of cell phones and PDAs. Many employers already have policies that address the “hands-free” requirement for use of cell phones. Those employers that do not have policies would do well to create and implement them. Although implementing such policies may not prevent liability in case of an employee’s negligence, it can help with raising a defense if something should occur.

California Labor Code Section 2802, says: "a) An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful. (b) All awards made by a court or by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for reimbursement of necessary expenditures under this section shall carry interest at the same rate as judgments in civil actions. Interest shall accrue from the date on which the employee incurred the necessary expenditure or loss. (c) For purposes of this section, the term 'necessary expenditures or losses' shall include all reasonable costs, including, but not limited to, attorney's fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section." (emphasis added).

A policy that not only alerts employees to the new law, but clearly shows the employer intends for the employees to comply with it, may help mitigate liability in the case of an accident or even if an employee-driver is fined on the job.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by James Cool

It’s the Network: How the Medical Provider Network is Changing Care for Injured Workers

James Cool — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:49:17 GMT

Based on reforms of a few years ago, California workers who are injured on the job are turning to physician networks. Both an insurance research group and the California Workers’ Compensation Institute show increased use of medical provider networks, or MPNs. An MPN is an entity specifically created by self-insured employers and insurers to treat injured workers. The use of MPNS was not allowed until January of 2005, but they are becoming more common in California. The reforms also marked a change for the duration of the employer’s involvement in a workers’ care. Before the reforms, employers typically controlled only the first month of injury. When a worker receives treatment under an MPN, employers can require injured workers to receive treatment through the MPN for the duration of their care.

Although some workers may feel that the MPN limits their choice of care, the goals of the MPN are fairly noble. Legislators allowed for the MPNs with the goal of containing costs, coordinating care, and improving efficiency. It seems that those goals may be reached, as MPNs continue to grow very popular among injured workers. A study by an insurance research group showed that “use of networks to treat injured workers rose from one in three first-year outpatient doctor visits for 2002 job injuries to nearly half of all visits for 2004 injuries — the first claims in which treatment in the initial 12 months could have shifted to MPNs. The rate rose to nearly 60 percent of doctor visits for 2005 injuries, and to 63 percent of the doctor visits for 2006 injuries.” The MPNs, like PPOs before them, have begun to play an increasing role in the medical services provided to those with worker compensation claims.

Some unions and workers have begun to formulate physician and medical networks as part of employment agreements and employment negotiations. When an MPN becomes competitive, it is the workers that may reap the benefits. When Liberty Mutual’s MPN was modified just last year, it was touted as a boon to employees. The modifications and increase of the MPN’s size was thought to create additional opportunities for local care. Some also argue that wider networks foster experience for doctors in treating occupational injury. While this may be the case, the Institute has yet to study just how satisfied workers are with the various networks at play in the state.

A year after the MPN was permitted in California, the use of doctor network doubled in size. However, the Institute has not included any data about whether or not the practice of permitting MPNs is encouraging doctors to stay in the state to practice.

Employers may provide an employee with an MPN Employees Manual or MPN Employee Letter at the time of hire, at the time of injury on the job, or at both times. It is suggested that even if you have not sustained an on-the-job injury, you may want to request this documentation from your employer and evaluate the MPN. If you work for an employer that offers group health insurance, you may be required to receive treatment from an MPN for the duration of your medical compensation claim. If you do not wish to be treated by the MPN, you can designate your own personal doctor to provide treatment. However, this has to be done in advance.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by James Cool

Man Fired After Workers' Comp Claim According to Lawsuit

Shannon Weidemann — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:22:18 GMT

A man has filed a lawsuit in West Virginia after he claims he was fired after he filed a Workers' Compensation claim. He was injured in a truck accident while working for Catenary Coal Company. The accident happened in June 2007. The company claims he was fired for drug use.

In August 2007, two months after his accident, Bishop was randomly drug tested, which came back positive with reports of hydrocodone and oxycodone. As a result of the test, Bishop was fired.
According to the suit, Bishop provided a second urine screening and hair sample testing, which rebutted the accuracy of the first test, but the company refused to reconsider their decision to fire him.

The man is seeking compensation for loss of benefits, emotional distress, and legal expenses. There is no specific dollar amount asked for in the lawsuit. The company had no comment on the lawsuit.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann

California Workers' Comp Rates Will Not Change

Shannon Weidemann — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:06:11 GMT

An advisory committee has ruled that Workers' Compensation rates in California do not need to be changed mid-year. The Workers' Compensation Insurance Ratings Bureau is set to meet next in August to discuss rates for 2009. Rates are evaluated twice a year and findings are submitted to the state's Insurance Commissioner.

Mid-year filings usually are "limited to instances of major changes in loss experience, legislation or regulation," the Rating Bureau said in a news release. Insurers' year-end loss experience for their California operations "suggests a modest increase of as much as 4.2 percent" is warranted. But the Rating Bureau will continue to track insurers' experience, and wait to propose any change to take effect starting Jan. 1.

Insurance companies are not bound by the insurance commissioner but often listen to the recommendations of the advisory committee in setting rates. The committee is based out of San Francisco.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann

Carmichael Man Charged With Workers' Comp Fraud

Shannon Weidemann — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:39:33 GMT

A Carmichael man is being charged with workers' compensation fraud after collecting over $150,000 from the state of California. He was a worker at the Preston Youth Correctional Facility and claims he was assaulted by an inmate there. He claims his injuries were so severe he could not work.

The following day, Bourdaniotis allegedly took and passed the Department of Real Estate's salesperson examination, which had a 63 percent failure rate on that day, according to the release.
All this came while Bourdaniotis allegedly claimed his injuries were so debilitating that he "could not follow the plot of a TV program," the release said.
In later months, investigators found that Bourdaniotis got a state contractor's license while still on disability, the release said.

The man has been charged with six counts of felony workers' compensation fraud. He faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann