Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Employment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Employment. Show all posts

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Workers RIghts Protected Under Federal Law

NLRB finds that certain mandatory arbitration agreements violate federal labor law

The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that it is a violation of federal labor law to require employees to sign arbitration agreements that prevent them from joining together to pursue employment-related legal claims in any forum, whether in arbitration or in court.

The decision examined one such agreement used by nationwide homebuilder D.R. Horton, under which employees waived their right to a judicial forum and agreed to bring all claims to an arbitrator on an individual basis. The agreement prohibited the arbitrator from consolidating claims, fashioning a class or collective action, or awarding relief to a group or class of employees

The Board found that the agreement unlawfully barred employees from engaging in “concerted activity” protected by the National Labor Relations Act. The Board emphasized that the ruling does not require class arbitration as long as the agreement leaves open a judicial forum for group claims.

Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce and Member Craig Becker joined in finding the agreement unlawful. Member Brian Hayes was recused from the case. The decision was finalized on Jan. 3, but was issued publicly by the agency today.

The Board sought briefs on the issue from interested parties last summer. More than a dozen amicus briefs were filed, and can be read on this case page.

The decision requires Horton to rescind the agreement or revise it to make clear to employees that they are not waiving their right to pursue a class or collective action in all forums.

Read the Editorial of the NY Times: Rights in the Workplace

Friday, January 13, 2012

OSHA cites Newton, NJ, manufacturer for workplace safety and health violations- proposes nearly $49,000 in fines

The seal of the United States Department of LaborImage via Wikipedia

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited retaining ring manufacturer Schneider & Marquard Inc. for 21 workplace safety and health violations. OSHA initiated an inspection in response to a complaint alleging several workplace hazards at the company's Newton facility. Proposed fines total $48,840.

Three repeat safety violations with $23,760 in penalties involve obstructed exit routes, lack of proper machine guarding and deficient record keeping for power press inspections. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. The company was cited for similar violations in 2009.

Twelve serious safety and health violations with $21,120 in penalties involve failing to implement a hearing conservation program that includes noise monitoring, audiometric testing and training; properly mount and identify portable fire extinguishers; provide powered industrial truck training; implement a hazard communication program that includes training; ensure proper use and listing of electrical equipment; ensure compressed air was reduced to 30 pounds per square inch; and ensure proper functioning and maintenance of mechanical power presses. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

Six other-than-serious safety violations with $3,960 in penalties involve failing to record workplace injuries and illnesses on the OSHA 300 log. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.

"These hazards should be immediately addressed to ensure a safe and healthful workplace for employees," said Kris Hoffman, director of OSHA's Parsippany Area Office. "OSHA will continue to hold employers responsible when they violate federal laws."

Schneider & Marquard Inc., which employs about 24 workers at its Newton site, has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, ask for an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Monday, January 9, 2012

Parking Lot Injuries Are Compensable

      Injuries occurring  in parking lots are in many instances compensable. A lot depends on who controls parking in the lot and/or whether or not the employer directs the employee to park in a specific location.

      The legal theory that is the basis for determining who is responsible is whether the injury occurs in the course of the employment and arises out of the employment. When the employer owns the property and the employee becomes injured while going to and from his or her vehicle, the accident is usually deemed to have occurred at work and is compensable.

       The situation becomes more complicated when the employee is involved in an accident in a parking lot not owned or controlled by the employer. In those instances the courts traditionally look to whether the employer directed where the employee should park or how the employee should park his or her vehicle.

       Because the courts have held that the employer's parking lot is part of the employment premises and an employee entering or using the lot is in the course of employment, an employee injured when struck by an automobile driven by a co-employee was not able to sue the co-employee for negligence; the sole remedy was in the workers' compensation arena.  Konitch v. Hartung, 81 N.J.Super. 376, 195 A.2d 649 (App.Div.1963), certif. denied 41 N.J. 389, 197 A.2d 15 (1964).

       If the employee directs that the employee utilize a specific parking lot or a common area in a commonly owned parking lot, then the injures that occur in the parking are considered arising out of and in the course of employment and are considered compensable.
.....
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

Monday, December 5, 2011

US Labor Department, Colorado Department of Labor and Employment sign agreement to reduce misclassification of employees as independent contractors

Nancy J. Leppink, deputy administrator of the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division, and Ellen Golombek, executive director of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, signed a memorandum of understanding Dec. 5 regarding the improper classification of employees as independent contractors. Following the signing, Leppink and Golombek hosted a press teleconference during which they discussed how the U.S. Department of Labor and the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment will embark on new efforts, guided by this memorandum, to protect the rights of employees and level the playing field for responsible employers by reducing the practice conducted by some businesses of misclassifying employees. This partnership is the 11th of its kind for the U.S. Department of Labor.
"This memorandum of understanding helps us send a message: We're standing united to end the practice of misclassifying employees," said Leppink. "This is an important step toward making sure that the American dream is still available for employees and responsible employers alike."
"Misclassification costs everyone," said Golombek. "It destabilizes the business climate by creating an unlevel playing field and causing responsible businesses to suffer unfair competition. The efforts we will be launching with the U.S. Department of Labor will promote accountability that Colorado employers and employees will welcome."
Employee misclassification is a growing problem. In 2010, the Wage and Hour Division collected nearly $4 million in back wages for minimum wage and overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act that resulted from employees being misclassified as independent contractors or otherwise not treated as employees.
Business models that attempt to change, obscure or eliminate the employment relationship are not inherently illegal, unless they are used to evade compliance with federal labor law. The misclassification of employees as something else, such as independent contractors, presents a serious problem, as these employees often are denied access to critical benefits and protections — such as family and medical leave, overtime compensation, minimum wage pay and Unemployment Insurance — to which they are entitled. In addition, misclassification can create economic pressure for law-abiding business owners, who often find it difficult to compete with those who are skirting the law.Employee misclassification also generates substantial losses for state Unemployment Insurance and workers' compensation funds.
Memorandums of understanding with state government agencies arose as part of the U.S. Department of Labor's Misclassification Initiative, which was launched under the auspices of Vice President Biden's Middle Class Task Force with the goal of preventing, detecting and remedying employee misclassification. Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Utah and Washington have signed similar agreements. More information is available on the U.S. Department of Labor's misclassification Web page at http://www.dol.gov/misclassification.

Friday, December 2, 2011

NJ Legislation Seeks To Increase Counsel Fees

Practicing workers' compensation law is difficult work, and not usually economically rewarding. Most lawyers who handle claimant's work have a passion to help people. In most, if not many cases, the time and effort that an attorney puts into the case usually just doesn't offset fee paid in the case.

Gone are the days when scores of cases were adjudicated on a daily basis in most jurisdictions. Many factors have caused the system to shift from high gear to what seems like reverse. The manufacturing workforce has dwindled, conditions have become safer, a good thing, and reforms to the system have thrown in hurtles that appear insurmountable to obtain benefits. The tightening of recovery procedures by collateral sources have changed the flow, from a tidal wave of dispositions, to a dribble through the funnel.

Fewer and fewer attorneys now participate in workers' compensation claims, even though other areas of the legal economy have gone into the tank. Those who are remaining are attempting to be even more selective in what representation they undertake. With limited assets to invest there needs to be a an economic certainty for recovery more than ever.

Legislation has been introduced in NJ to expand the recovery of counsel fees. The Senate Labor Committee will meet on Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 10:00 AM in Committee Room 6, First Floor, State House Annex, Trenton, New Jersey discuss a pending bill to increase the base for benefits. S2446 Concerns attorney fees for workers' compensation awards.

"This bill requires that in cases in which a workers’ compensation  petitioner has received compensation from an insurance company  prior to any judgment or award, the reasonable allowance for attorney fees will be based upon the sum of the amount of compensation already received by the petitioner, and the amount of the judgment or award in excess of the amount of compensation  already received by the petitioner. Currently, in cases in which a  petitioner has received compensation prior to a judgment or award, a reasonable attorney fee is based upon only that part of the judgment or award that is in excess of the amount of compensation already received by the petitioner."

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Temporary Holiday Workers Face Hazards of the Season

This holiday season, more than in the past, there will be a serious challenge to workers who are taking on temporary jobs. As the economy continues to be in the ditch, more people are being hired for jobs for which they are untrained and unfamiliar. Injuries will result.

Temporary employees who are injured at work are not accustomed to the procedural requirements to give their employers notice of the injury, and the correct manner and method to seek approved medical treatment. Additionally benefits paid to seasonal workers are notoriously low and paid sporadically so the computation of rate benefits becomes an issue.

See Eve Tahmincioglu's article, Tough economy makes holiday jobs a gift for many (msnbc.msn.com)

"In 2008, Andrew Sullivan lost his job as a sales and customer service supervisor for a telecommunications company and decided to take a temporary seasonal gig as a driver for UPS because he couldn’t find work in his field....." read more
.....
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.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Worker-On-Worker Violence Among Hospital Employees

"Violence toward hospital workers is an internationally recognized occupational hazard. While patients are frequently perpetrators of physical violence, other employees are often responsible for acts of nonphysical violence. However, few hospitals have systems for documenting and monitoring worker-on-worker violence. This study encompassed all incidents of worker on- worker violence recorded by employees in a hospital system database over a six-year period. Incidence rates per 100 full-time equivalents (FTEs) and rate ratios (RR) were calculated by year, hospital, and job category. The majority (87%) of worker-on-worker incidents involved nonphysical conflict. The overall incidence rate was 1.65/100 FTEs, ranging among the six hospitals from 0.54 to 3.42/100 FTEs. Based on multivariate analysis, no single professional group was at increased risk for worker-on-worker violence. Co-worker violence threatens the well-being of hospital employees and should be regularly tracked with other forms of workplace violence so that suitable intervention programs can be implemented and assessed.

Monday, October 3, 2011

Work Injury During Sex: Ridiculous?

Guest Blog by Thomas M. Domer  

Not really. From time to time lurid headlines raise eyebrows about employees who claim workers' compensation for injuries occurred during sex. The most common response is “How ridiculous . . . The employee is not being paid to have sex (unless she is a hooker).”

A most recent headline notes an Australian woman who had hotel sex with an acquaintance and was injured when a wall-mounted light fell on her during the encounter. She sought workers' compensation because the incident occurred during a business trip and she claimed having sex on a business trip is “an ordinary incident of life” that entitles her to payment under workers' compensation law.


Traveling employees receive broad workers' compensation coverage in Wisconsin under a 3-step analysis:
  1. Traveling employees are deemed to be in the course of employment at all times while on a trip (portal to portal);
  2. Except when engaged in deviation for a private or personal purpose;
  3. Acts reasonably necessary for or incidental to living are not deviations.
Skeptics may note that sex may or may not be reasonably necessary for living, but the last clause provides that acts merely incidental to living are not deviations and therefore coverage should be provided.

The traveling employee provision was created to remedy situations in which employees, whose work required them to live away from home for periods of time, were not compensated for injuries sustained during normal activities of daily living on a business trip. Wisconsin Supreme Court has issued a presumption that a traveling employee performs services incidental to employment at all times on a trip, with the burden of proving deviation falling to the employer.

Such widely varied activities as skiing, shopping, drinking, and swimming have been found compensable under the traveling employee statute. Recent court cases confirm that traveling employees may participate in reasonable recreational activities without deviating from their employment.

Many employee trips have a “dual purpose,” both personal and business. The Court’s criteria for coverage: If the business purpose could necessitate the trip even if the personal trip were cancelled, compensation is awarded.


Thomas M. Domer practices in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (www.domerlaw.com). He has authored and edited several publications including the legal treatise Wisconsin Workers' Compensation Law (West) and he is the Editor of the national publication, Workers' First Watch. Tom is past chair of the Workers' Compensation Section of the American Association for Justice. He is a charter Fellow in the College of Workers' Compensation Lawyers. He co-authors the nationally recognized Wisconsin Workers' Compensation Experts Blog.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Bad Cases Make Bad Law

Guest Blog by Thomas M. Domer  

The Illinois legislature just passed a law in response to a notorious claim in which a Sheriff Deputy, driving more than 100 miles per hour while using his cell phone, crossed a median and slammed into a car, killing two teenage sisters.

The claim drew regional and national attention and ultimately resulted in a revision in Illinois’ workers' compensation claims that would prevent any State employee hurt at work from being eligible for workers' compensation if the injury happened during a forcible felony, an aggravated DUI, or reckless homicide, if any of those crimes killed or injured another person.

The law is much more restrictive than the initial media summaries blaring “State law bars State employees injured while committing crimes from receiving worker’s comp.”

This is another example of bad cases creating bad law. The Sheriff filed a workers' compensation claim for his injuries but an arbitrator concluded that his high speed and cell phone use was a “substantial and unjustifiable risk resulting in gross deviation” barring his claim. The Illinois legislature reacted to the media and public outcry.

In other states, notably Wisconsin, an advisory council meets annually to deal with such perceived excesses, and to change the law accordingly.

A few years ago I represented a worker who, despite his employer’s offer to re-employ him with his disability, chose instead to obtain vocational rehabilitation, which was ordered by a judge and the Commission. His claim seemed to run afoul of the express purpose of worker’s compensation in Wisconsin and other states, which is to restore the injured worker to a job.

After the case was reported, the employer and insurance carrier representatives on Wisconsin’s Advisory Council recommended (appropriately) this perceived loophole be closed, and the new law barred the employer’s liability for vocational rehabilitation benefits if the employer offered a job to the injured worker which was refused.

Since the early days of workers' compensation in Wisconsin the courts have liberally construed “in the course of employment.” Absent evidence of abandonment of employment, it is presumed employment continues, except if a deviation can be proved.

Poor judgment or negligence is not synonymous with deviation and an employee must willfully abandon job duties to be excluded. If an employee is injured while engaging in an activity and disobedience of an order of the employer solely for the employee’s own benefit, workers' compensation benefits will be denied. However, if the disobedient actions were in furtherance of the employer’s interest rather than the employee’s, compensation is granted.

As one workers' compensation veteran judge has noted, “even bad employees get compensation.” The no-fault nature of workers' compensation sometimes produces hard-to-swallow results.

Thomas M. Domer practices in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (www.domerlaw.com). He has authored and edited several publications including the legal treatise Wisconsin Workers' Compensation Law (West) and he is the Editor of the national publication, Workers' First Watch. Tom is past chair of the Workers' Compensation Section of the American Association for Justice. He is a charter Fellow in the College of Workers' Compensation Lawyers. He co-authors the nationally recognized Wisconsin Workers' Compensation Experts.

Monday, September 19, 2011

US Dept of Labor Moves Aggressively on Misclassification of Employees

The misclassification of workers by employers directly impacts the calculation of workers' compensation benefits. The US Department of Labor today has moved aggressively to co-ordinate actives with the US IRS to co-ordinate enforcement and education.

Generally, employees classified as independent contrators are not entitled to workers' compensation benefits Employers sometime commit fraud and designate employees as independent contractors and avoid paying both taxes and benefits such as workers' compensation.

11 state agency leaders also sign, agree to memorandums of understanding

Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis today hosted a ceremony at U.S. Department of Labor headquarters in Washington to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Internal Revenue Service that will improve departmental efforts to end the business practice of misclassifying employees in order to avoid providing employment protections. In addition, labor commissioners and other agency leaders representing seven states signed memorandums of understanding with the department's Wage and Hour Division and, in some cases, its Employee Benefits Security Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs and Office of the Solicitor. The signatory states are Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Utah and Washington. Secretary Solis also announced agreements for the Wage and Hour Division to enter into memorandums of understanding with the state labor agencies of Hawaii, Illinois and Montana, as well as with New York's attorney general.

The memorandums of understanding will enable the U.S. Department of Labor to share information and coordinate law enforcement with the IRS and participating states in order to level the playing field for law-abiding employers and ensure that employees receive the protections to which they are entitled under federal and state law.

"We're here today to sign a series of agreements that together send a coordinated message: We're standing united to end the practice of misclassifying employees," said Secretary Solis. "We are taking important steps toward making sure that the American dream is still available for all employees and responsible employers alike."

"This agreement takes the partnership between the IRS and Department of Labor to a new level," said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. "In this new phase of our relationship, we will work together more efficiently to address worker misclassification issues, and better serve the needs of small businesses and employees."

Business models that attempt to change, obscure or eliminate the employment relationship are not inherently illegal, unless they are used to evade compliance with federal labor laws — for example, if an employee is misclassified as an independent contractor and subsequently denied rights and benefits to which he or she is entitled under the law. In addition, misclassification can create economic pressure for law-abiding business owners.

These memorandums of understanding arose as part of the department's Misclassification Initiative, which was launched under the auspices of Vice President Biden's Middle Class Task Force with the goal of preventing, detecting and remedying employee misclassification.


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

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

The Top 10 Drugs Prescribed For Workers Compensation Claims

A recent study by NCCI Holdings, Inc. reports the top 10 most popular drugs prescribed for workers' compensation claims.
  1. OXYCONTIN® 
  2. LIDODERM® 
  3. HYDROCODONE-ACETAMINOPHEN 
  4. LYRICA® 
  5. CELEBREX® 
  6. GABAPENTIN 
  7. SKELAXIN® 
  8. CYMBALTA® 
  9. MELOXICAM 
  10. CYCLOBENZAPRINE HCL 
Workers compensation medical costs per claim average more than $6,000 and soar to nearly $25,000 for lost-time claims. The report examined workers compensation prescription drug (Rx) use, a medical expense that makes up 19% of all workers compensation (WC) medical costs.

    Other key findings of the report were:
    • The indicated Rx share of total medical is 19%; this is slightly higher than the estimate given in the 2010 update
    • OxyContin® climbs from the number 3 WC drug in Service Year 2008 to number 1 in Service Year 2009 
    • Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen drops from the top WC drug in Service Year 2008 to number 3 in Service Year 2009 
    • Recent overall cost increases are driven more by utilization increases than by price increases 
    • Physician dispensing continues to increase in Service Year 2009 in almost every state 
    • Increased physician dispensing is associated with increased drug costs per claim 
    • Per-claim Rx costs vary significantly by state
    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.

    Monday, September 12, 2011

    Workers Compensation Do It Yourselfers Get Help

    Workers Compensation claims can be complicated and difficult so some states offer assistance to those who want to handle their own cases. Minnesota is the latest in a series of jurisdictions to offer assistance to both injured workers and employers.

    The Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) has established a new Office of Workers' Compensation Ombudsman to provide advice and assistance to employees and small businesses.

    "Our goal is to help injured workers and small businesses who are having problems navigating the workers' compensation system," said Ken Peterson, DLI commissioner. "The ombudsman will complement the other services provided by our agency's Safety and Workers' Compensation Division and will be an additional resource for parties who need in-depth help in resolving problems they encounter in the workers' compensation system."

    Various stakeholders have long sought an ombudsman function to help injured workers who are often at a disadvantage because they know very little about how the sometimes complex benefit entitlement system works in workers' compensation. In February 2009, after studying DLI's oversight of workers' compensation, the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor issued a report that encouraged the establishment of an ombudsman function to "help those injured workers who are overwhelmed with the workers' compensation process."

    The ombudsman assists injured workers by:
    • providing advice and information to help them protect their rights and to pursue a claim;
    • contacting claims adjusters and other parties to help resolve disputes;
    • assisting in preparing for settlement negotiations or mediation; and
    • making appropriate referrals to other agencies or entities when further resources are needed.

    The ombudsman assists small businesses by:
    • providing information regarding what to do when an employee reports an injury;
    • directing them to appropriate resources for assistance in obtaining and resolving issues regarding workers' compensation insurance; and
    • responding to questions pertaining to employers' responsibilities under Minnesota's workers' compensation law.
    Hopefully more states will recognize that their to assist employees and employers in what has become a very complicated process. The Minnesotta effort will go along way to relieve stress and anxiety for everyone involved in the process.

    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.


    Wednesday, September 7, 2011

    Distracted Driving Accidents Echo Intoxication Caused Injuries

    The New England Journal of Medicine reports that the activism against driving while intoxicated is beginning to be mirrored in distracted driving crashes. This parallel will probably cause workers' compensation courts and state legislature to shortly revisit the compensability of certain claims caused by employees who engage in distracted driving and will likely bar them from eligibility as workers compensation claims.


    "As cell phone technology improved, texting while driving, which necessitates taking one’s eyes off the road, also became a major concern. The new term 'distracted driving' encompasses many behaviors that divert attention from driving, hampering awareness and performance and increasing risk."


    The moral outrage being generated from distracted driving behavior will most likely mandate the imposition of technological changes to restrict cell phone use in moving vehicles. While that technology is being developed and deployed, workers and their employers should take heed of the growing public policy against such conduct.

    Friday, September 2, 2011

    When the Boss Calls

    The use of cells phones while driving still remains a serious problem as drivers continue to ignore laws throughout the country. Unenforced and unenforceable laws throughout the nation aren't meeting the well intentioned goal of restricting their use. A major excuse is the need to use it for work and my "boss" required the employee to use it.

    The epidemic of distracted driving continues to spread. Economic consequences are not yet frequent enough and severe enough to change the culture of abuse. Industry still hasn't taken the bold steps required to solve the problem.

    Even though the genie of the "car phone" is out of the bottle, carefully engineered technology can resolve the problem. The same companies that brought us the unhealthy combination of cell phones and distracted driving can engineer the cure.

    Employers seem to lack the economic motivation to take action. Employers who insit on their use for employment reasons can be compared to those employers who remove a machine guard to increase production at the cost of injury. It is senseless and tragic to insist that employees are required to us cellphones for employment. It is time that mandatory technology safeguards be implemented to curb abuse and avoid trajic and unnecessary accidents.

    Thursday, September 1, 2011

    Who Is Paying the Premiums for Workers Compensation Anyway

    Employes have been subject to "give backs" and "add on" costs for decades, but now employers want to shift the cost of workers compensation insurance to employees. The intent of the workers' compensation act was to shift the costs of workers' compensation coverage to the consumer of the product and/or user of the service and not the employee.


    A recent Massachusetts Judge reiterated that principle, but left open the question as to whether the employee could consensually contract to accept the costs of workers' compensation coverage. If this occurs, it is ultimately a "deal breaker."


    Cost shifting of workers' compensation coverage is a dangerous precedent going to the heart of the initial promise made to workers in creating the system. Is is against  "public policy," and defeats the Legislative intent of the act. While the economy is soft and the workers' compensation system in a weakened condition it is not time to abandon ship unless a more creative approach for reform of the entire system comes into play. As jobs remain scarce, the process would not be consensual, but merely coercion. Shifting the cost would ultimately remove the deterrent effect for unsafe workplaces, and yet is another reason why employers and ultimately consumers should remain responsible for workers compensation  costs.


    See: Awuah v. Coverall North America, Inc.,--- N.E.2d ----, Mass. , 2011 WL 3805255, Mass., August 31, 2011 (NO. SJC-10829)

    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.