2005 PDRS: Overlap = NO DEFINITION, NO SUCH CONCEPT. AMA GUIDES 5 TH EDITION: NO DEFINITION, NO EXPLAINED, DETAILED CONCEPT.
|
|
- Bertram Skinner
- 2 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 1
2 1997 PDRS: Overlap When factors of disability resulting from the current injury duplicate factors resulting from a different injury or condition, the disabilities are said to overlap. Overlap occurs to the extent that the factors of disability resulting from the current injury do not reduce an injured worker s ability to compete in an open labor market beyond the disability resulting from pre-existing injury(ies) and/or condition(s). The attribution of overlapping factors of disability to different causes is called apportionment. Overlapping disability(ies) resulting from the prior injury or condition must be factored out of the current disability so that the rating reflects only the residual disability caused by the current injury. Overlap may be total, partial or absent 2
3 2005 PDRS: Overlap = NO DEFINITION, NO SUCH CONCEPT. AMA GUIDES 5 TH EDITION: NO DEFINITION, NO EXPLAINED, DETAILED CONCEPT. 3
4 2005 PDRS: Overlap = NO DEFINITION, NO SUCH CONCEPT. AMA GUIDES 5 TH EDITION: NO DEFINITION, NO EXPLAINED, DETAILED CONCEPT. See Perez v. UC Santa Cruz, PSI (2013) [page 28 of Raymond Corrieo s Apportionment: Case Law Update included in materials] So Distinction between Labor Code Section 4663 and Unlike Labor Code Section 4664, under Labor Code Section 4663 an applicant can prove rehabilitation from a prior industrial or nonindustrial injury. 4
5 Unlike Labor Code Section 4664, under Labor Code Section 4663 an applicant can prove rehabilitation from a prior industrial or nonindustrial injury. Questions for doctors to consider in the analysis: 1. Time off work? 2. Temporary modified duties? 3. Diagnostics done? 4. Surgery? 5. Permanent functional limitations? 6. Gap between treatment? Ongoing need for medicine? 7. Self modification of work or ADLs? Conclusion: Explain how and why the prior injury did, nor did not, have an impact in the current nonindustrial apportionment analysis. 5
6 RISK FACTORS 6
7 What are risk factors? Age Ethnicity Gender Obesity Genetic predisposition Disease processes Are they apportionable factors?
8 AB 305 (Gonzalez) Prohibition on Gender Bias in Workers Compensation Amendments are in italics. Amend Labor Code Section 4663 (c) (c)(1) In order for a physician's report to be considered complete on the issue of permanent disability, the report must include an apportionment determination. A physician shall make an apportionment determination by finding what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by the direct result of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment and what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by other factors both before and subsequent to the industrial injury, including prior industrial injuries.
9 AB 305 (Gonzalez) Prohibition on Gender Bias in Workers Compensation Amendments are in italics. Amend Labor Code Section 4663 (c) Apportionment in cases of physical injury shall not be based on any of the following contemporaneous conditions: Pregnancy, Menopause, Osteoporosis. Apportionment in cases of psychiatric injury may not be based on psychiatric disability or impairment caused by contemporaneous sexual harassment, or caused by any of the conditions listed above.
10 AB 305 (Gonzalez) Prohibition on Gender Bias in Workers Compensation Amendments are in italics. Add to LC Section 4660 (f) The impairment ratings for breast cancer and its sequalae shall in no event be less than comparable ratings for prostate cancer and its sequalae. Add to LC Section (j) The impairment ratings for breast cancer and its sequalae shall in no event be less than comparable ratings for prostate cancer and its sequalae.
11 Benson Issues & Beyond Apportionment Between/Among Industrial Injuries (Slicing the Pie) 11
12 Industrial Injuries Labor Code 4663 applies to apportionment between and among different work related injuries just as it applies to apportionment between industrial and non industrial Labor Code 4664 applies to Apportionment to prior Awards of Permanent Disability Sometimes If Labor Code 4664 does not apply, Labor Code 4663 does apply 12
13 Industrial Injuries LC Apportionment (a) Apportionment of permanent disability shall be based on causation (b) Any physician who prepares a report addressing the issue of permanent disability due to a claimed industrial injury shall in that report address the issue of causation of the permanent disability. (c) In order for a physician's report to be considered complete on the issue of permanent disability, it must include an apportionment determination. A physician shall make an apportionment determination by finding what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by the direct result of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment and what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by other factors both before and subsequent to the industrial injury, including prior industrial injuries. 13
14 Benson v. WCAB (2009) 73 CCC 113 (1st DCA) On , Ms. Benson, a file clerk, reached for a plastic bin and felt a pain in her neck. AME opined 60% PD overall. AME allocated: Apportionment Between/Among Industrial Injuries 50% = specific injury of % = CT ending on
15 Benson v. W.C.A.B. Issue raised Apportionment Between/Among Industrial Injuries Combine PD into single PD award (62%) Separate PD awards of 31% WCJ awarded 62% W.C.A.B. reversed and awarded two 31% awards 15
16 Industrial Injuries Benson v. WCAB.: Labor Code 4663 requires a physician to allocate PD between multiple work injuries. plain language of the new statutory scheme requires apportionment to each cause of a permanent disability, including each distinct industrial injury. specifically requires a physician to determine what percentage of disability was caused by each industrial injury, regardless of whether any particular industrial injury occurred before or after any other particular industrial injury or injuries. 16
17 Industrial Injuries Benson v. W.C.A.B. (Cont) We agree with the Board that a system of apportionment based on causation requires that each distinct industrial injury be separately compensated based on its individual contribution to a permanent disability. 17
18 Industrial Injuries Benson v. WCAB We also agree that there may be limited circumstances, not present here, when the evaluating physician cannot parcel out, with reasonable medical probability, the approximate percentages to which each distinct industrial injury causally contributed to the employee's overall permanent disability. In such limited circumstances, when the employer has failed to meet its burden of proof, a combined award of permanent disability may still be justified. 18
19 Industrial Injuries Applying Benson v. W.C.A.B. Cannot use the limited circumstance language in Benson to avoid consideration of apportionment. Consideration of allocation between/among industrial injuries is required unless physician cannot parcel out the effects of each injury Term inextricably interwoven is not used in Benson! Consider medically parcel out 19
20 Industrial Injuries Applying Benson v. W.C.A.B. Proposed Analysis to allocate between injuries Requires physician have an adequate history and record review of the factors which allow decision How Traumatic was each injury? How long the employee miss work for the injury Did the employee have restrictions on activity post injury Did injury case new or different symptoms or DX Did the injury result in surgery or significant different treatment 20
21 Industrial Injuries Applying Benson v. W.C.A.B. Which injury is the most significant? Rank the injuries in terms of significance based on factors obtained in history and record review Consider the relative significance of injury relative to other injuries Equal in severity? Twice as significant? Minor significance? No significance? 21
22 Industrial Injuries Applying Benson v. W.C.A.B. Weigh each factor as to each injury and assign an approximate % of causation Remember PRECISION is not required. Statutory requirement is approximate % Can t decide? 22
23 Industrial Injuries Applying Benson v. W.C.A.B. If you can t decide if one or more of the injuries is more significant that the other, they are not inextricably intertwined! The injuries are equal in causation to each other. -- Consider the limited circumstances when the exception does apply. 23
24 Industrial Injuries State Fund v W.C.A.B. (Dorsett) Applicant sustained specific & CT injury. AME opined equal contribution AME also concluded absent specific CT claim likely would not exist 2nd Injury compensable consequence of 1st WCJ & W.C.A.B. bought concept not 2 separate and distinct injuries Court of Appeal reversed rejecting inextricably intertwined : based on the testimony of the AME, the successive injuries can be rated separately and Dorsett s joint and several award of 100 percent permanent disability must be annulled 24
25 Industrial Injuries - EXCEPTION Zurich North American (administered by Broadspire), insurer for Holt, Rinehart & Winston (subsidiary of Harcourt), Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, (Gwendolyn Driver), Respondents (2013) 2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 54 Writ of Review Denied. When neither treating physician nor agreed medical evaluator could parcel out, with reasonable medical probability, approximate percentages to which each of applicant's injuries contributed to her permanent disability, and WCAB found that their opinions constituted substantial evidence. 25
26 Industrial Injuries - EXCEPTION Zurich North American v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, (Gwendolyn Driver), (2013) Applicant suffered industrial injuries to her knees and back on 10/3/2002, to her neck and back from 10/2001 to 3/18/2002, and from 9/5/2002 to 6/20/2003, and to her knees, wrists, upper extremities, neck, and back from 10/2001 to 6/30/2003. AME concluded It is, indeed, not possible to determine which body part is causing what precise portion of the patient's disability. It is not possible to determine which dates of injury caused which portions of her overall disability, as the parts of body overlap and the various disabilities interact with each other. The human body is not a machine and functions as a whole. The left knee affects the right knee, and vice versa. The knee affects the lumbar spine, the lumbar spine affects the knee. The cervical spine affects the upper extremities and the wrists, hands, and elbows also affect the cervical spine. It is clear that the patient is factually totally disabled according to Labor Code Section
27 Industrial Injuries - EXCEPTION Zurich North American v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, (Gwendolyn Driver), (2013) Treating physician Accordingly, I agree with Dr. Alban that the patient is 100% totally disabled and unable to compete in the open labor market. I agree that her disability is the result of her lumbar spine, cervical spine, left knee, bilateral hand, wrist and elbow disability in combination, and that the degree of disability resulting from each body part and date of injury cannot be separated out. The patient is 100% disabled as a result of the combination of her disability Treating physician To further explain with regard to distinguishing which of the patient's several injuries resulted in what portion of her total permanent disability, the following is noteworthy. The relationship between the 01/16/01 injury and the October March 18, 2002 CT cannot be apportioned. The doctor then launched into pages of explanation as to how he came to the conclusion that he could not medically parcel out the industrial permanent disability between the multiple injuries. 27
28 Industrial Injuries - EXCEPTION Zurich North American v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, (Gwendolyn Driver), (2013) Treating physician This patient suffered two specific injuries to multiple body parts which were in turn subjected to additional periods of insult as the patient continued to work. Each injury contributed to the patient's current permanent condition, that of total permanent disability, and no exact measurement can be assigned to how each injury added its particular insult. It can only be said that without each injury the patient's condition would not be as it is today. Not only do the various parts of body and dates of injury inter-react, but together the sum of the disability created is greater than would be expected by the simple addition of the various disabilities affecting each part of body. I have consulted with other physicians, who agree that it is impossible to apportion between the various dates of injury without speculating. 28
29 29
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION RONALD L. MARTENS Claimant VS. BRULEZ FOUNDATION, INC. Respondent Docket No. 1,019,265 AND COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INS. CO. Insurance
FRESNO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION. Applicant Name: JOHN DOE Appointment Date: 01-01-10
FRESNO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION REFERRAL FOR INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION Applicant Name: JOHN DOE Appointment Date: 01-01-10 Time: 3:00 p.m. Date Name of Doctor Address Dear Dr.. On
Workers Compensation and Seniors
Chapter 10 Workers Compensation and Seniors Gregory B. Cairns, Esq. Cairns & Associates, P.C. SYNOPSIS 10-1. Workers Compensation 10-2. Benefits Available 10-3. Filing a Workers Compensation Claim 10-4.
LEGAL UPDATES IN WORKERS COMPENSATION
GLENN L. SILVERII NANCY CHAMBERLAIN-STRUPP SCOTT K. KUBIS STEPHANIE PROFFITT RENARD KHOODA PETER J. GORELICK DAVID J. CARASH ALEXANDER ANOZIE ROGER C. KONIA LISA CHEUNG LUPE CARRASCO GLENN L. SILVERII
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY PAMELA R. LECOMPTE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) C. A. No. 02A-01-010 JEB CHRISTIANA CARE HEALTH ) SYSTEMS, ) ) Respondent. ) Submitted:
"Apportionment: Case law update focusing on themes, trends, and problem areas." (2013 Case Update Supplement)
"Apportionment: Case law update focusing on themes, trends, and problem areas." (2013 Case Update Supplement) 2013 Raymond F. Correio, Senior Associate, Pearlman, Borska & Wax; Workers' Compensation Law
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 14275-11 WHSCC Claim No: 837491 Decision Number: 15034 Marlene A. Hickey Chief Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The
2014 Honor System Consulting
1 Managing Attorney, Lien Unit Floyd Skeren & Kelly LLP Owner of Honor System Consulting Prior Manager of the Division of Workers Compensation Medical Unit, in charge of the QME program, MPN, Independent
LEXSEE 153 CAL APP 4TH 524
Page 1 LEXSEE 153 CAL APP 4TH 524 CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND et al., Respondents. No. B192962 COURT
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA James Conace, : Petitioner : : v. : : Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Armen Cadillac, Inc.), : Nos. 346 & 347 C.D. 2014 Respondent : Submitted: September
Visit PDRater.com for free workers' compensation calculators
Filed 1/16/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX DWIGHT SMITH, v. Petitioner, 2d Civil No. B190054 (W.C.A.B. Nos. GRO 16225,
Template Medical-Legal Report -Workers Compensation
California Orthopaedic Association Template Medical-Legal Report -Workers Compensation This document is presented as a template of the required elements of an orthopaedic QME/AME report. It is provided
1 WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD. 4 Case No. ADJ589625 (ANA 0373659)
1 WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Case No. ADJ589625 (ANA 0373659) LONNIE SHELTON, 5 OPINION AND ORDER 6 Applicant, GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER 7 vs. RECONSIDERATION
FACT PATTERN ONE. The following facts are based on the case of Bedard v. Martyn [2009] A.J. No. 308
FACT PATTERN ONE The following facts are based on the case of Bedard v. Martyn [2009] A.J. No. 308 The infant plaintiff developed a large blood clot in his brain at some time either before or during the
An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Juan A. Bello, Judge. Joy E. Greyer, West Palm Beach, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
CATHALEEN MYERS, v. Appellant/Cross-Appellee, SHERWIN-WILLIAMS PAINT, CO. and GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICING, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES
This form should not be used by a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) or Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) to report a medical-legal evaluation.
This form is required to be used for ratings prepared pursuant to the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule. It is designed to be used by the primary treating physician to report the initial evaluation
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IA Construction Corporation and : Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., : Petitioners : : v. : No. 2151 C.D. 2013 : Argued: November 10, 2014 Workers Compensation Appeal
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS. Agency No.
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS In the matter of Sharon A. Jones, Petitioner v State Employees Retirement System, Respondent / Docket No. 2000-1214 Agency
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARION A. DAVIS ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 216,570 CONSPEC MARKETING & MANUFACTURING CO. ) Respondent ) AND ) ) UNITED STATES
United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER
United States Department of Labor T.J., Appellant and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, NORTH ATLANTA STATION, Atlanta, GA, Employer Appearances: Appellant, pro se Office of Solicitor, for the Director
SB 863 Workers Compensation Update
SCOTT T. FORD* CHERYL L. WALLACH* LEWIS N. LEVY** EDITH E. LEVY ANALISA SWAN DANIEL R. BARTH JAY S. SIDHRA RUSSELL E. SHUBEN Levy, Ford & Wallach ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Professional Corporation 3619 Motor
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Wilma Coddington, : : No. 1226 C.D. 2012 Petitioner : Submitted: November 16, 2012 v. : : Workers' Compensation Appeal : Board (Lynchholm Holsteins and : State
Video Course Evaluation Form. Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of Course You Just Watched
Garden State CLE 21 Winthrop Road Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 (609) 895-0046 fax- 609-895-1899 Atty2starz@aol.com Video Course Evaluation Form Attorney Name Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 14152-06 WHSCC Claim No: 606499 and 791748 Decision Number: 14147 Lloyd Piercey Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The
SUMMARY DECISION NO. 143/97. Suitable employment.
SUMMARY DECISION NO. 143/97 Suitable employment. The worker slipped and fell in January 1992, injuring her low back and hip. She was awarded a 28% NEL award for her low back condition. The worker appealed
Medical-Legal Fee Schedule Tutorial
Medical-Legal Fee Schedule Tutorial For dates of service on or after July 1, 2006 Presented by Suzanne Honor-Vangerov Workers Compensation Manager DWC Medical Unit Definitions Abbreviations used in this
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DALE L. STILWELL ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) BOEING COMPANY and ) Docket Nos. 253,800 CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY ) & 1,031,180 Respondents
WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL
WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1025/94 This appeal was heard in Toronto on December 5, 1994, by a Tribunal Panel consisting of: R.E. Hartman : Vice-Chair, G.M. Nipshagen: Member representative
United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER
United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board MARY E. MARSHALL, Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Fresno, CA, Employer Appearances: Mary E. Marshall,
United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER
United States Department of Labor B.P., Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, MD, Employer Docket No. 13-1726 Issued: January 30, 2014 Appearances: Appellant,
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION GEORGIA R. KATZ ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,068,293 USD 229 ) Self-Insured Respondent ) ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimant
United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER
United States Department of Labor M.L., Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY, Houston, TX, Employer Appearances: Jeffrey P. Zeelander, Esq., for the appellant Office of Solicitor,
Employees Compensation Appeals Board
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employees Compensation Appeals Board In the Matter of GEORGE G. WILK and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MORAINE VALLEY FACILITY, Bridgeview, IL Docket No. 03-453; Submitted on the Record;
OCFA Workers Compensation Report for CY 2008. Human Resources/Risk Management
OCFA Workers Compensation Report for CY 2008 Human Resources/Risk Management May 2009 Executive Summary and Table of Contents This is the annual report on the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Workers
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET # 97-0761 OPINION
RACHEL DAYHUFF, PLAINTIFF, 1998 ACO #682 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET # 97-0761 WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED AND NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
NICOLE HARRISON, Petitioner, THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, CITY OF PHOENIX c/o YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, Respondent Carrier.
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
McQuiddy, Jana v. Saint Thomas Hospital
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 6-28-2016 McQuiddy, Jana v.
Current Workers Compensation Law Compared to the 2013 Workers Compensation Reform Act
Current Workers Compensation Law Compared to the 2013 Workers Compensation Reform Act Area Addressed Current Law Reform Act Workers Compensation Division The Division of Workers Compensation operates under
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G011127 SHARON MCCULLER, EMPLOYEE OPINION FILED DECEMBER 29, 2011
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G011127 SHARON MCCULLER, EMPLOYEE ARKANSAS SPECIALTY ORTHOPAEDICS, EMPLOYER TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF AMERICA, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA CLAIMANT
L. R. v. Fletcher Allen Health Care (January 4, 2007) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
L. R. v. Fletcher Allen Health Care (January 4, 2007) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR L. R. Opinion No. 57-06WC By: Margaret A. Mangan v. Hearing Officer Fletcher Allen Health Care For: Patricia Moulton
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) KIRCHER V. THE MASCHHOFFS, LLC NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY
In 2003, the California Supreme Court
Employment Law Commentary Volume 18, No. 4 April 2006 Nothing Is Forever: The Ability of Employers to Terminate Employees with Industrial Injuries After Lauher By Hiroki Suyama In 2003, the California
SUMMARY. Carpal tunnel syndrome; Permanent impairment [NEL] (rating schedule) (AMA Guides) (functional impairment).
SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1033/98 Carpal tunnel syndrome; Permanent impairment [NEL] (rating schedule) (AMA Guides) (functional impairment). The worker was a stope miner for four years beginning in 1987. In
Employees Compensation Appeals Board
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employees Compensation Appeals Board In the Matter of BRENDA K. ANDREWS and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, Chillicothe, OH Docket No. 03-780; Submitted on the Record; Issued
CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 863 INTRODUCTION California SB 863 will change many aspects of the workers compensation system. This brief outline serves as a
CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 863 INTRODUCTION California SB 863 will change many aspects of the workers compensation system. This brief outline serves as a summary of some of the major changes which is meant
[Cite as State ex rel. Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 591, 2014-Ohio- 2871.]
[Cite as State ex rel. Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 591, 2014-Ohio- 2871.] THE STATE EX REL. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL.,
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Advanced Dermatology Associates : (Selective Insurance Company of : America), : Petitioners : : v. : No. 2186 C.D. 2014 : Submitted: May 22, 2015 Workers Compensation
Presented by Bradford & Barthel, LLP Sherri M. Dozier, Director of Client Development and Relations Large Loss Department Specialist
Presented by Bradford & Barthel, LLP Sherri M. Dozier, Director of Client Development and Relations Large Loss Department Specialist Approximately 12.4% of Gross Wages (F.I.C.A) pay for Social Security.
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MICHAEL L. McDONALD Claimant VS. FIBERGLASS SYSTEMS, LP Respondent Docket No. 1,003,977 AND PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. Insurance
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION WILLIAM G. GUGENHAN ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 162,711 GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION ) Respondent ) Self-Insured ) AND ) ) WORKERS
LEGAL BRIEFS NEWSLETTER CASES & COMMENTS ON WORKERS COMPENSATION January 2010 www.mcdermott-clawson.com January 2010 REVISITING ROLDA:
LEGAL BRIEFS NEWSLETTER CASES & COMMENTS ON WORKERS COMPENSATION January 2010 www.mcdermott-clawson.com January 2010 REVISITING ROLDA: WINNING A GOOD- FAITH PERSONNEL ACTION Often is the time when a defendant
NEWSLETTER WORKERS COMPENSATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2012
NEW Law Pty Ltd ABN 51 148 002 368 50 O Dea Avenue Waterloo NSW 2017 NEWSLETTER WORKERS COMPENSATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2012 Last week the NSW Government put through a bill to amend the Workers
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT GREG STURTZ, HF No. 277, 2000/01 Claimant, v. DECISION YOUNKERS, INC., Employer, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Insurer. This is a workers
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F201987 ORDER AND OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2003
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F201987 NANCY SISCO DAS FAMILY, INC. UNION STANDARD INSURANCE CO. CLAIMANT RESPONDENT EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CARRIER ORDER AND OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER
VICKIE RUTH HELMS 1 DOCKET NO. 152,668 BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION
VICKIE RUTH HELMS 1 DOCKET NO. 152,668 BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION VICKIE RUTH HELMS Claimant VS. Docket No. 152,668 TOLLIE FREIGHTWAYS, INC. Respondent INSURANCE
Employees Compensation Appeals Board
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employees Compensation Appeals Board In the Matter of MICHAEL D. JONES and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FORT KNOX HIGH SCHOOL, Fort Knox, KY Docket No. 02-835; Submitted on the Record;
.25 Schedule of [Attorneys'] Attorney's Fees.
.25 Schedule of [Attorneys'] Attorney's Fees. A. The Commission shall approve [attorneys'] attorney's fees in accordance with the schedule of fees established from time to time by the Commission and set
DECISION NUMBER 749 / 94 SUMMARY
DECISION NUMBER 749 / 94 SUMMARY The worker suffered a whiplash injury in a compensable motor vehicle accident in May 1991. The worker appealed a decision of the Hearings Officer denying entitlement when
Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board
Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board OPINION ENTERED: June 6, 2014 CLAIM NOS. 201300659 & 201300144 ATWOOD T. DEZARN PETITIONER/CROSS-RESPONDENT VS. APPEAL FROM HON. JEANIE OWEN MILLER,
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION QUANITA A. PEOPLES ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,045,122 LANGLEY/EMPIRE CANDLE COMPANY ) Respondent ) AND ) ) SECURA INSURANCE,
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G ABILENE L. WENDT, EMPLOYEE ARKANSAS HEALTH CENTER, EMPLOYER
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G002506 ABILENE L. WENDT, EMPLOYEE ARKANSAS HEALTH CENTER, EMPLOYER PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA CLAIMANT RESPONDENT
Employees Compensation Appeals Board
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employees Compensation Appeals Board In the Matter of CLETUS V. SCHILTZ and DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MEAT & POULTRY INSPECTION PROGRAM, Sioux Center, IA Docket No. 03-1703;
LIFE CARE PLANS. 2014 Judicial Conference Panel Discussion November 17, 2014
LIFE CARE PLANS 2014 Judicial Conference Panel Discussion November 17, 2014 LIFE CARE PLANNER At the beginning of the damages phase, the parties should discuss whether they can agree to use a single life
United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER
United States Department of Labor T.M., Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, New York, NY, Employer Appearances: Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Department of Employment Services Labor Standards Bureau. CRB No. 05-205 JOSEPH MURRAY, Claimant - Petitioner
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Department of Employment Services Labor Standards Bureau Office of Hearings and Adjudication COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD (202) 671-1394-Voice (202) 673-6402-Fax CRB
Your Rights Under the Missouri Workers Compensation Law
Your Rights Under the Missouri Workers Compensation Law All states have workers compensation laws. The Missouri Workers Compensation Law is contained in Chapter 287 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 13252-11 WHSCC Claim No.(s): 604016, 611050, 672511 705910, 721783, 731715, 753775, 784014, 831110 Decision Number: 14189 Marlene
Revised May 2015. What Is Workers Compensation?
This pamphlet provides an overview of the workers compensation system in the State of New Hampshire, including what is covered by workers compensation, what benefits are available, and what you should
Memorandum. Trial Counsel in Medical Malpractice Cases. John E. Wetsel, Jr., Judge. From: Date: December 11, 2012. Sample Instructions.
Memorandum To: From: Trial Counsel in Medical Malpractice Cases John E. Wetsel, Jr., Judge Date: December 11, 2012 Subject: Sample Instructions ============================== Here is a complete set of
Is the Worker entitled to medical aid in the form of blood pressure or cholesterol medication?
1 CLAIM HISTORY AND APPEAL PROCEEDINGS: The Worker suffered workplace back injuries in 1981, 1982 and 1984. A discectomy was performed in 1986, and a two-level fusion and nerve root decompression was performed
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL SARAVIA V. HORMEL FOODS NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F910691. TERRY FOSTER, Employee. TYSON SALES & DISTRIBUTION, Self-Insured Employer
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F910691 TERRY FOSTER, Employee TYSON SALES & DISTRIBUTION, Self-Insured Employer CLAIMANT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2013 Hearing
What do I do about time missed from work to attend appointments relating to my injury?
What do I do about time missed from work to attend appointments relating to my injury? An injured worker needs to use accrued leave to be paid for time missed from work to attend appointments relating
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. DECISION OF MEDICARE APPEALS COUNCIL Docket Number: M-10-125
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD DECISION OF MEDICARE APPEALS COUNCIL Docket Number: M-10-125 In the case of Claim for M.B.C. (Appellant) Medicare Secondary Payer ****
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. In the Matter of the Compensation of Randi P. Ayres, Claimant. VIGOR INDUSTRIAL, LLC, Petitioner,
No. 291 August 7, 2013 795 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Compensation of Randi P. Ayres, Claimant. VIGOR INDUSTRIAL, LLC, Petitioner, v. Randi P. AYRES, Respondent.
Application for a Medical Impairment Rating (MIR)
STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT Workers Compensation Division Medical Impairment Rating Program 220 French Landing Drive Nashville, TN 37243-1002 Phone (615) 253-1613 Fax
BUILDING A WORKERS COMPENSATION DEFENSE ARSENAL IN A WORLD OF MISTRUST
BUILDING A WORKERS COMPENSATION DEFENSE ARSENAL IN A WORLD OF MISTRUST By: Christian A. Davis, Esquire and Wendy S. Smith, Esquire of Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby LLP As a practicing
APPEAL NO. 100822 FILED AUGUST 23, 2010
APPEAL NO. 100822 FILED AUGUST 23, 2010 This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on June
Workers Compensation Information & Guidelines. Table of Contents
Workers Compensation Information & Guidelines Table of Contents Purpose Page 2 Summary Page 2 Coverage Page 2 Eligibility Page 2 Injury Defined Page 3 Benefits Available Page 3 Temporary Disability Page
DANIEL CROSS (Appellant) LLP TRANSPORT, LLC (Appellee) GREAT FALLS INSURANCE CO. (Insurer)
STATE OF MAINE APPELLATE DIVISION WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD Case No. App. Div. 15-0001 Decision No.15-23 DANIEL CROSS (Appellant) v. LLP TRANSPORT, LLC (Appellee) and GREAT FALLS INSURANCE CO. (Insurer)
CASE LAW UPDATES April 2008. Melmark Home v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., (Rosenberg) 2008 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 135
CASE LAW UPDATES April 2008 Melmark Home v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., (Rosenberg) 2008 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 135 In issuing a NATRW, "prompt written notice" requires an employer to give a claimant notice of
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G006420 HOUMPHAENG DAOSAENG, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT OK FOODS, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G006420 HOUMPHAENG DAOSAENG, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT OK FOODS, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 12, 2015 Hearing before
SOAH DOCKET NO. 453-04-4583.M2 TWCC MR NO. M2-04-0846-01 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' DECISION AND ORDER I. JURISDICTION, NOTICE, AND VENUE
SOAH DOCKET NO. 453-04-4583.M2 TWCC MR NO. M2-04-0846-01 FIRST RIO VALLEY MEDICAL, P.A., Petitioner V. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., Respondent BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DECISION
SUBCHAPTER 29. MEDICAL FEE SCHEDULES: AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION AND MOTOR BUS MEDICAL EXPENSE INSURANCE COVERAGE
SUBCHAPTER 29. MEDICAL FEE SCHEDULES: AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION AND MOTOR BUS MEDICAL EXPENSE INSURANCE COVERAGE 11:3-29.1 Purpose and scope (a) This subchapter implements the provisions
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Division of Workers Compensation Workers Compensation Appeals Board
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Division of Workers Compensation Workers Compensation Appeals Board JOE ELLIS, Case No. ADJ9312688 Applicant, vs. BELL PLASTICS INSURANCE CO OF THE WEST, FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Carmelo Olivares Hernandez, No. 2305 C.D. 2014 Petitioner Submitted May 15, 2015 v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Giorgio Foods, Inc.), Respondent BEFORE
NO. COA11-780 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 6 March 2012
NO. COA11-780 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 6 March 2012 TIMOTHY ROSE, Employee, Plaintiff, v. North Carolina Industrial Commission I.C. No. 898062 N.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Employer, SELF-INSURED
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F311984. CHARLES MARTIN, Employee. VAN BUREN PIPE CORPORATION, Employer
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F311984 CHARLES MARTIN, Employee VAN BUREN PIPE CORPORATION, Employer CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICE COMPANY, Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
WORKERS COMPENSATION IN RHODE ISLAND A SUMMARY OF THE LAW
WORKERS COMPENSATION IN RHODE ISLAND A SUMMARY OF THE LAW PREPARED BY ATTORNEY GARY J. LEVINE 369 SOUTH MAIN STREET PROVIDENCE, RI 09203 401-521-3100 www.workerscompri.com TABLE OF CONTENTS INJURIES COVERED
What Happens After I Report the Injury?
Introduction The Iowa Workers Compensation Act provides the only legal remedy against their employer for workers who are injured on the job. Workers Compensation law can be very technical. The law is administered
United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER
United States Department of Labor L.K., Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PHILADELPHIA TERMINAL MARKET, Philadelphia, PA, Employer Appearances: Appellant, pro se Office of Solicitor, for the Director
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F102457 OPINION FILED JULY 20, 2004
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F102457 KEN WATERS, EMPLOYEE CENTURY TUBE CORPORATION, EMPLOYER CROCKETT ADJUSTMENT, CARRIER CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED
2011 Changes to Kansas Workers Compensation Act
On April 18, 2011, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed a new law changing the workers compensation system. (H.B. 2134) amends the Workers Compensation Act (KSA Sec. 44-501, et seq.) by changing Sections
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET #96-0089 OPINION
RICHARD P. BELLANT, PLAINTIFF, 1998 OPINION #328 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET #96-0089 STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SELF INSURED, DEFENDANT.
Chapter 7. Permanent Disability Benefits
What are permanent disability benefits? Most workers recover from their job injuries. But some continue to have problems. If your treating doctor says you will never recover completely or will always be
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division
Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division WHSCRD Case No: 13277-12 WHSCC Claim No: 633272 Decision Number: 14132 Lloyd Piercey Review Commissioner The Review Proceedings 1. The review took
An Injured Workers Guide to the Workers Compensation Process Table of Contents
An Injured Workers Guide to the Workers Compensation Process Table of Contents I. Claim Information A. General Information 1. What is workers compensation? 2. How do I know if I qualify for Workers Compensation?
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-WC-02083-COA HOWARD INDUSTRIES INC. MISSISSIPPI WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALED:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-WC-02083-COA ELSA PEREZ APPELLANT v. HOWARD INDUSTRIES INC. APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/27/2013 TRIBUNAL FROM WHICH MISSISSIPPI WORKERS COMPENSATION
DOCKET NO. 453-05-9160.M5 MDR Tracking No. M5-05-1420-01. CROWNE CHIROPRACTIC BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE CLINIC, Petitioner VS. OF
DOCKET NO. 453-05-9160.M5 MDR Tracking No. M5-05-1420-01 CROWNE CHIROPRACTIC BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE CLINIC, Petitioner VS. OF AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DECISION