Copyright

(c) 2010-2025 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Division of Workers Compensation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Division of Workers Compensation. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Case Remanded to Compensation Court to Determine Employment Status

A NJ Appellate Court has remanded a negligence case from Superior Court to the Division of Workers' Compensation to determine when an employee held joint employment and subject to the Exclusivity Bar.

" It is well settled in this jurisdiction that for workers ' compensation  purposes
an employee may be simultaneously employed by more than one employer, either because
of the employee's separate contracting with multiple employers or because
his general employer has “lent” him to a special employer. The question to be
determined in the dual employment situation is whether, at the time of the injury,
the petitioner was, as a factual matter, the employee of one or the other
or both of the employers.
In determining which among multiple employers are liable for workers ' compensation ,
this court has noted the indicia of employment that ordinarily require
evaluation, including the existence of a separate agreement between the employee
and each employer, the determination of whose work is being done at the time of
the compensable injury, which has the right to control the details of the work,
which pays, and which has the power to hire, discharge or recall the employee.
The relative weight to be accorded these factors and the manner in which they
are to be balanced are not, however, ... subject to mechanical or automatic application.
Rather, the criteria determinative of the employment relationship
must be “rationalized and applied so that each case may be considered and determined
upon its own particular facts.” And, ...in the dual employment situation,
the most significant inquiry is the determination of “whose interest the
employee was furthering at the time of the accident. ”

CHALMERS and FRED CHALMERS, Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
STEPHEN J. SWARTZ
--- A.3d ----, 2013 WL 5525694 (N.J.Super.A.D.) October 9, 2013

Related articles

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

IMR: What Was The California Legislature Thinking?

Today's post is authored by David DePaolo, a national leading commentator on workers' compensation with special expertise in the California system, and shared from http://daviddepaolo.blogspot.com. The Independent Medical Review system was theoretically contrived to contain cost and make the California system friendlier and more expeditious. Quickly enacted, without full debate and comments from stakeholders, the system has become stymied and yet another hurtle in the system. Read David' thoughtful analysis.......

The debate about the big volume of Independent Medical Review requests in California's new system that were recently reported is all over the map.

Some say that the provider, Maximus, is at fault and many support the Division of Workers' Compensation's proposal for new time lines and penalties for various actions and/or inactions.
There's also plenty of blame slinging going on with employer representatives accusing the applicant attorneys, applicant attorneys implicating carriers/administrators, and everyone else pointing fingers at each other.

But Steven Cardinale, co-founder and Managing Director of CID Management, a Utilization Review company, put it best to me in an email when he said, "SB 863 was conceived in such a way as to assure the overuse of IMR."

I have to agree with Mr. Cardinale - none of the participants in the California system is really to blame for the huge volume going to IMR because the law essentially guaranteed that this would...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Monday, September 2, 2013

Brain injuries a big problem for NFL in California

Today's post was shared by WCBlog and comes from www.aberdeennews.com


By the thousands, professional athletes from around the country are seeking medical care or money through California's workers' compensation system for brain trauma and other injuries suffered on the playing field.

Former athletes have filed more than 4,400 claims involving head and brain injuries since 2006 — seven times more than in the previous 15 years, according to a Times analysis of state records. Nearly three-quarters of all new claims made in California now include alleged brain injuries.
Most of these claims come from former pro football players, brought by superstars such as Joe Theismann, Tony Dorsett and Earl Campbell, as well as unheralded practice squad players.
NFL brain injuries
NFL brain injuries