Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Workers' Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Web Portal (WCMSAP) Webinar


Please read below an invitation to Submitters to attend a CMS Workers' Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Web Portal (WCMSAP) Webinar.

WCMSAP Submitters Webinar - August 10, 2011

Event Description: This Webinar will review the Workers' Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Portal (WCMSAP), a new web-based application that allows for the electronic submission and tracking of WCMSA proposals submitted to CMS for review. This Webinar will also review the current WCMSA proposal submission process, the new submission process on the WCMSAP and the WCMSAP screens that will be used to enter and submit a proposal.

Enrollment Information: To receive your Webinar access information simply send an email to Techi@nhassociates.net and include the following information. To ensure that you receive webinar access information, future notifications and announcements regarding the Webinar, please add this e-mail address (Techi@nhassociates.net) to your "Safe Sender" list in your e-mail client.

Note: Due to limited seating we will need to hold attendance to an 85 user maximum. So please reserve
your seat as soon as possible, we apologize for any inconvenience.

Information Required for WCMSAP Webinar Registration:

Name (first and last):
Email Address:
Company Name:
Tel. Number:
Receipt of invitation which reserves space in Outlook Calendar (i.e. an iCal) (Yes/No):

Related articles
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Text To Join Our Mailing List - Workers Compensation Law

Stay up to date on current developments in workers' compensation benefit programs. Join our monthly newsletter Workers' Compensation Law mailing list today. Text WORKCOMP to 22828.

For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

An Employer Is Responsible To Compensate For Pain

A NJ Appellate Court, in a dramatic reversal of a compensation judge's dismissal of a case, held that "an employer is responsible to compensate" an injured worker for pain.  The reviewing court held that, "...the judge misapplied some standards bearing upon this case."

The trial judge's conduct, in baring the treating physician from testifying, was also cited as "a discretionary lapse." The trial judge's ruling was reversed and the case remanded for a hearing.

The case involved a long standing injury that required prolonged treatment for a chronic medical condition. The injury occurred in June of 1989 and was the subject of an Order Approving Settlement in January 2004 for 20% of partial total. That award was entered by another trial judge.

Even thought an Order had been entered by the prior trial judge for continued medical treatment and medication, the insurance company unilaterally terminated provision of those benefits without a court order. The claimant's attorney, George Goceljak, was required to file two motions for continued medical treatment and medication benefits. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution and then subsequently restored the matter for trial and then marked it "not moved" when a minimal one-cycle (3 week) adjournment was requested. Customarily, NJ workers' compensation cases are tried in piecemeal, every 3 to 6 weeks.

The trial judge then mandated that the trial should begin immediately on January 15, 2010, commenting that she was, "...not going to wait" any longer for the the claimant to proceed with his case. She denied a reconsideration of the application of the injured worker to allow the treating physician to testify, and then proceeded in a 5 month stagnated trial ultimately dismissing the case.

The NJ Appellate Division found, "the judge erred is using, out of its context, the simple thought that 'an employer is not required to compensate and employee for pain,' as a basis for denying this petitioner's application. The larger principle...is that, to the extent that a petitioner experiences continuing pain as a result of his work-connected injury, the employer for whom he worked at the time of the injury remains responsible.'"

Noto v. Staples, Inc.,  Docket No. A-0237-10T1, 2011 WL 3273921 (NJ App. Div. 2011) Decided August 2, 2010 
Related articles
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, August 5, 2011

Bad Faith Claims Maybe Going to the Jury

The NJ Supreme is going to review the procedure to bring bad faith claims against employers and insurance companies in workers' compensation actions. The Court accepted for review a case holding that workers' compensation bad faith claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the workers' compensation hearing official.

The case involves an injured worker who filed a civil action against his employer's workers' compensation insurance company for failing to comply with the Division of Workers' Compensation Order that medical treatment should proceed. The employee alleged that the delay and denial of medical care caused harm. The lower court had rejected the case and dismissed it holding that the jurisdiction for bad faith is exclusively within the purview of the Division of Workers' Compensation. Stancil v. ACE USA, 418 N.J. Super. 79, 12 A. 3rd 223 (App. Div. 2011), ___A.3d___, 2011 WL 3342730 (NJ). Decided June 7, 2011.

In another decision, the NJ Supreme Court held that bad faith, in a negligence action,  was a contractual issue giving rise to a factual question that could only be decided by a jury.

"We conclude that a Rova Farms claim that an insurer in bad faith failed to settle a claim within the policy limits, thereby in fact exposing its insured to liability for any excess, represents a traditional contract claim that the insurer breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and to which the right to trial by jury attaches." Wood v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company, 21 A.3d 1131, 2011 WL 2314954 (NJ), Decided June 14, 2011.

The Stancil case highlights one of the most serious and costly issues in Workers' Compensation, both in NJ and the nation, the adequate and efficient delivery of medical care. While the courts are struggling with this issue that is compounded by arguments over reimbursement  and treatment paths, the compensation system continues to be bogged down and unresponsive to the urgency of the need to delivery medical care to injured workers.

For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Related articles
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, August 1, 2011

Workers Compensation Named to Top 50 Human Resources Blogs 2011



Evan Carmichael of The Entrepreneur Blog has named Workers Compensation Blog to the Top 50 Human Resources Blogs of 2011. Workers Compensation Blog is a resource for trends and developments in workers' compensation. It's popularity has grown exponentially over the last few years. The site contains hundreds of resource articles and links. It has received hundreds of thousands of hits and page views.

"Anyone who has ever run a business knows one thing – the most important resource you have at your disposal are the people around you. That is why getting your human resources strategy right is so crucial to business success. The following Top 50 Human Resources Blogs of 2011 can help you do just that.

"Written by the industry’s best, these blogs can help you with everything from hiring, to firing, to becoming a strong leader and managing your people in the best way possible. To reach the top, you need to have a solid team supporting you.
Related articles
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

Why is the US Still in the Asbestos Business?

The US still has not banned asbestos. The recently released US Geological Survey just published the latest statistics reporting that 1,040 metric tons of asbestos, a know carcinogen and the cause of mesothelioma, a rare and fatal disease, was consumed in 2010 in the US. Roofing products account for about 72% of US consumption and other applications 28%.

Where does it come from? Our northern neighbor, Canada. Asbestos has not been mined in the US since 2002. The US imports 99% of the asbestos it consumed from Canada. In fact the US consumed 1,040 metric tons in 2010 which was an increased from 869 metric tons in 2009. 

If Congress really wanted to improve the health of both its citizens and the economy, it would take appropriate action to ban asbestos in the US. 

For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Related articles
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

Employers Risks Increase From Cell Phone Use

The results of a recent survey of US construction industry managers reflects that employers are now facing an increased risk of lawsuits for damages caused by accidents that their  employees have had while using a cell phones while driving at work. The survey demonstrates that the passive action by employers, by merely having a written cell phone policy, is ineffective to stop distracted driving accidents caused by cell phone use.

The study, published by Zoom Safer Inc. , reveals that 72.1% of construction companies already have a written policy restricting employee cellphone use while driving. The findings of the survey disclose that 25.2% of the companies have knowledge or evidence that employee vehicle crashes occurred as a result of distractions arising from the use of cell phones while driving. The economic consequences for those companies could  be severe since 10.8% of the companies responding to the survey reported that the accidents have resulted in lawsuits against the employer for employee's use of the a cell phone while driving.

While workers' compensation is a no fault system of insurance, the surge of claims caused by distracted driving by employees, will ultimately result in severe economic consequences to the employer. It is more than obvious that the economic liability to employers will be a driving force for employers to take a more active roll in curbing cell phone use, and for insurance carriers to reconsider the the need to transferability to employers to reduce distracted driving claims.

For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Related articles
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)