Copyright

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

Friday, November 22, 2013

Johnson & Johnson hip implant settlement price could soar above $4 billion

Today's post was shared by FairWarning and comes from www.nj.com


A settlement Johnson & Johnson finalized yesterday over faulty hip implants could be worth more than the initial $2.5 billion price. 

Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay at least $2.47 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits over its recalled hip implants, lawyers for the company and patients told a judge in outlining an accord that may be worth more than $4 billion.

The agreement would resolve about 8,000 U.S. suits against J&J’s DePuy unit brought by patients who have already had artificial hips removed, Susan Sharko, one of the company’s lawyers, told U.S. District Judge David Katz yesterday in Toledo, Ohio.

The company will pay an average of about $250,000 for each surgery and cover related medical costs, Sharko said.

“The settlement provides compensation for eligible patients without the delay and uncertainty of protracted litigation,” Andrew Ekdahl, worldwide president of DePuy Synthes Joint Reconstruction said in a statement.

The settlement, which doesn’t require the judge’s approval, is the second multibillion-dollar accord this month for J&J, the world’s largest seller of health-care products.

The company, based in New Brunswick, New Jersey, agreed Nov. 4 to pay $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil probes into the marketing of...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Monday, November 4, 2013

The End of the Class-Action Carnival

The End of the Class-Action Carnival
Class actions have been a major vehicle to creating safer workplace in the past. It is imperative that the people have their day in court to maintain a democratically balanced system of  government. Today's post article is shared from businessweek.com.

F. Paul Bland Jr. brings class-action lawsuits for a living. Over the years he’s represented groups of plaintiffs in suits against payday lender Check ’n Go and financial institution Wachovia.

He’s worried about business drying up. As a result of hostile Supreme Court rulings over the last several years, scores of mass consumer and employment suits that would have been viable a decade ago have been dismissed, says Bland, a senior attorney with Public Justice, a nonprofit in Washington.

“People bring me cases against cable companies or big employers, and I say, ‘Forget it. It’s impossible. Not even worth trying.’ ”

The mass lawsuit—in which hundreds or even thousands of plaintiffs join together to go after a corporate defendant—is in deep trouble. Growing judicial skepticism toward such suits and toward the lucrative settlements they generate has caused plaintiffs’ attorneys to shy away from accepting lengthy, complicated cases.

That’s tilting the legal playing field decisively in favor of Big Business—and as the Supreme Court reconvened on Oct. 7 for its 2013-14 term, trial lawyers are bracing for more setbacks.
Not everyone is shedding tears. Walter Olson, a legal expert at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, attributes the decline of mass lawsuits to a predictable—and...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Truck driver alleges firing based on work comp claim

Today's post was shared by votersinjuredatwork and comes from madisonrecord.com


scales of justice2

A woman claims she was fired from her former job after she filed for workers’ compensation benefits.
Sandra Terry filed a lawsuit Sept. 17 in Madison County Circuit Court against TMCI, Peoplease Corporation and Thomas J. Manville.
In her complaint, Terry alleges she was working as a truck driver for TMCI on Aug. 9, 2008, when she suffered an injury.
Because she was injured while working, Terry filed for workers’ compensation benefits including medical treatment and time off work, according to the complaint.
On Sept. 20, 2008, TMCI fired Terry, the suit states. Manville authorized her termination, knowing that it happened because of her workers’ compensation claim, the complaint says.
In her complaint, Terry seeks general damages of more than $100,000, plus lost wages and benefits, pre-judgment interest, punitive and exemplary damages, costs and other relief the court deems just.
D. Jeffrey Ezra of Ezra and Associates in Collinsville will be representing her.
Madison County Circuit Court case number: 13-L-1563.
[Click here to see the original post]

Friday, September 27, 2013

The Impact and Echoes of the Wal-Mart Discrimination Case

This article is shared from propublica.

The post is shared from probulica.org.

Betty Dukes talks to the press on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court after the class action lawsuit Dukes v. Wal-Mart was argued before the court in Washington, March 29, 2011
(Photo: Reuters)
When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes in June 2011, no one needed a Richter scale to know it was a Big One. In throwing out a mammoth lawsuit by women employees who claimed that they’d been systematically underpaid and underpromoted by the world’s biggest corporation, the ruling upended decades of employment discrimination law and raised serious barriers to future large-scale discrimination cases of every kind.

Employers rejoiced. Others predicted serious setbacks for women and minorities, especially in employment discrimination cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That landmark law had opened the way to the use of the class-action lawsuit as a potent weapon for people who could not stand up for their rights on their own.
Two years later, it’s becoming clear just how much the ruling has reshaped the American legal landscape.

The Dukes decision has already been cited more than 1,200 times in rulings by federal and state courts, a figure seen by experts as remarkable. Jury verdicts have been overturned, settlements thrown out, and class actions rejected or decertified, in many instances undoing years of litigation. The rulings have come in every part of the country, in lawsuits involving all types of companies,...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Monday, September 2, 2013

Lead Paint Makers Could Face The Same Fate As Big Tobacco

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


A lawsuit in California that seeks some $1 billion from former lead paint manufacturers is far from the first attempt to hold the industry liable for decades of poisoning children and leaving lingering contamination.

But experts such as Richard Rabin -- who directed a lead poisoning registry at the Massachusetts Department of Labor for over 20 years -- think the case just might be the first to finally succeed, marking the end of a long losing streak.

"My ideal hope is something along the lines of what happened with tobacco," said Rabin, who initiated the inaugural trial against the lead paint industry more than 25 years ago.
"It's gone on and on and on," he said of lead litigation, even as research uncovering lead's dangers, "keeps coming and coming."

After fending off lawsuits since the 1950s, the tables eventually turned on big tobacco, forcing the industry to pay out hundreds of billions of dollars in the late 1990s. At that point, it had become common knowledge that the industry was well aware of the addictive qualities and the health hazards of their products.

In 1987, with nearly a century of documented dangers accumulated on childhood lead poisoning, a lawsuit -- spurred by Rabin -- was filed on behalf of a Boston girl exposed to lead paint as a toddler.

"I want to be a lawyer, but I don't think I can do the studying,'' Monica Santiago told The New York Times in 1988, then 15 years old. ''In school they teach me, but I forget. The kids call me dumb. Sometimes when I do...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]
….

Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 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.

Friday, August 16, 2013

Liberty Mutual FIles Suit in NY To Stop Elimination of Reopener Fund

An effort spearheaded by Liberty Mutual to thwart Governor Cuomo's effort to eliminate the NY State Insurance Fund's elimination. The Cuomo Administration has asserted that the move to close the Fund is necessary to save money and consolidate resources to avert unnecessary workers' compensation insurance premium increases.

"Liberty Mutual Group subsidiaries have filed a suit challenging New York’s decision to close a state workers’ compensation fund dealing with settled claims that are later reopened.

"The suit alleges that the decision by the governor and legislature, included as a component of the state budget for the next two years, will cost insurers and self-insured employers up to $1.6 billion in unfunded liabilities.

"However, an industry official experienced in the workings of the state’s workers’ compensation fund questions the viability of the suit.


Click here to read the complete article, "Liberty Mutual Group Subsidiaries Challenge Closure of N.Y. Reopened Cases WC Fund"

Read more about "NY workers' compensation" and reform
Mar 11, 2008
With Governor Spitzer now embroiled in a major scandal that may end in his resignation as Governor of the State of New York, all eyes in the workers' compensation arena are now focused on his reform efforts. On February ...
Aug 13, 2013
Note that following the 2004 reform, SB 899, defense fees skyrocket from $368 million in 2003 to nearly double at $642 million in 2006, while applicant attorneys, whose fees are largely pegged to permanent disability indemnity, lost some ground, but essentially remained flat. Things stabilize a bit after 2006 until 2011 when the lawyers on both sides, start ... N.Y. AG announces $600,000 agreement with masonry ... Plaintiffs' expert says lead paint abatement could.
Apr 23, 2013
Headlines screaming for “Workers' Comp Reform” are blaring in many states (CA,FL, NY, OH, NC, and most recently IL). In Illinois, the state's much-criticized system is under fire and legislation to totally dismantle the system is ...
Apr 13, 2011
Headlines screaming for “Workers' Comp Reform” are blaring in many states (CA,FL, NY, OH, NC, and most recently IL). In Illinois, the state's much-criticized system is under fire and legislation to totally dismantle the system is ...

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Employee Penalized For Not Following Safety Rules

An employee's workers' compensation award maybe be reduced for failing to follow an employer's safety rules. A Missouri Court ruled that reducing an injured employee's award by 25% to 50% for failing to follow an employer's safety rules was not unconstitutional.

This ruling may have widespread application in many situations including distracted driving claims, where an employee sustains an accident while using a cell phone in violation of an employer's cell phone policy. The employer woud still remain responsible for the reduced award and, of course, subject to a 3rd part law suit by a potential 3rd party.

The reduction rule actually places fault back into the workers' compensation system which both violates the intent of the Act . Such a policy does not compensate for the reduced values (awards) anticipated and prescribed under the workers' compensation act. While the the logic seems to rational, the application further emasculates the intent of workers' compensation. It would be far more logical to put the cart before the horse, and work to prevent the unsafe work condition in the first place. Shifting responsibility to the injured worker is not consistent with the act's intent.

Thompson v. ICI American Holding, 2011 WL 3444008 (Mo.App. W.D.) Decided, August 9, 2011
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.


Medical Providers Barred From Lawsuits Against Employers for Benefits

A NJ Appellate Court, in an unreported decision, ruled that medical providers are barred from filing a civil action against an employer for medical services provided to an injured worker. The medical provider must bring the claim before the Division of Workers' Compensation which has exclusive jurisdiction over benefits.

This decision, while permitting contractual issues to be decided in a civil action, is consistent with a prior NJ Supreme Court ruling barring a collection action outside of workers' compensation directly against an injured worker for medical treatment.

The Valley Hospital v L.Q. Management, 2011 WL 3425591 (N.J.Super.A.D.) Decided August 8, 2011. (Not Approved for Publication)

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

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.

Monday, August 1, 2011

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.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

US Supreme Court Advances the Rights of Injured

Workers who become ill from defective medications prescribed to treat occupational conditions will now be afforded the opportunity to seek compensation by way of State class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies who manufacturer drugs that make them sicker. The Court expanded the rights of the injured today when it held that State class action law suits were not prohibited even though a Federal Court denied class certification in a pending similar case.

Workers' Compensation benefits are notoriously inadequate to compensation ill workers adequately from the harms resulting from the adverse effects of  defective medications. Third party actions by the employees against the ultimate wrongdoers, in this case the pharmaceutical manufactures, have become a vehicle to receive supplemental benefits.

The Supreme Court's decision afford the workers an opportunity to proceed with a class action in a State Court even though a similar clase may have not received class action certification in Federal Court.

"Respondent (Bayer) moved in Federal District Court for an injunction ordering a West Virginia state court not to consider a motion for class certification filed by petitioners (Smith), who were plaintiffs in the state-court action. Bayer thought such an injunction warranted because, in a separate case, Bayer had persuaded the same Federal District Court to deny a similar class-certification motion that had been filed against Bayer by a different plaintiff, George McCollins. The District Court had denied McCollins’ certification motion under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23.

"The District Court’s injunction was independently improper because Smith was not a party to the federal suit and was not covered by any exception to the rule against nonparty preclusion. Generally, a party “is ‘[o]ne by or against whom a lawsuit is brought,’ ” United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York , 556 U. S. ___, ___, or who “become[s] a party by intervention, substitution, or third-party practice,” Karcher v. May , 484 U. S. 72 . The definition of “party” cannot be stretched so far as to cover a person like Smith, whom McCollins was denied leave to represent. The only exception to the rule against nonparty preclusion potentially relevant here is the exception that binds non-named members of “properly conducted class actions” to judgments entered in such proceedings. Taylor v. Sturgell , 553 U. S. 880 . But McCollins’ suit was not a proper class action. Indeed, the very ruling that Bayer argues should have preclusive effect is the District Court’s decision not to certify a class. Absent certification of a class under Federal Rule 23, the precondition for binding Smith was not met. Neither a proposed, nor a rejected, class action may bind nonparties. See id., at 901. Bayer claims that this Court’s approach to class actions would permit class counsel to try repeatedly to certify the same class simply by changing plaintiffs. But principles of stare decisis and comity among courts generally suffice to mitigate the sometimes substantial costs of similar litigation brought by different plaintiffs. The right approach does not lie in binding nonparties to a judgment. And to the extent class actions raise special relitigation problems, the federal Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 provides a remedy that does not involve departing from the usual preclusion rules.

Amith v Bayer, No. 09-1205 (Decided June 16, 2011) 

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Court Permits Deduction of Procurement Costs From Medicare Set-Aside in Liability Claim

Following the guidelines of the CMS Management Memo entitled "Medicare Secondary Payer - Workers Compensation (WC) Information" dated May 7, 2004, and the interpretation of 42 CFR 411.37, a NJ Court granted an attorney the deduction of procurement costs from a Medicare Set-Aside Trust.

"This court's decision to apply 42 C.F.R. § 411.37 to funds obtained in a civil action and placed in a Medicare set aside is also in line with general principles of equity. Where a plaintiff is, or will within a short time become, a Medicare recipient, the plaintiff's attorney also works on behalf of Medicare to secure funds to pay future medical expenses Medicare would otherwise pay. To allow Medicare to avoid paying an equitable share of the procurement fees for a judgment or settlement amount, forcing the plaintiff to cover all the fees, would be unfair to plaintiffs. In some situations, a plaintiff may end up getting nothing after creating the set aside and paying attorneys' fees or may even have to pay money out of pocket to his attorney after a lengthy trial. Such a result would not only be inequitable, it would deter persons on Medicare who are injured by the tortious acts of others from bringing claims."

Hinsinger v. Showboat Atlantic City, L-3460-07, 2011 WL 1885980 (NJ Super Law Division 2011), decided May 19, 2011.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Brazilian Blowout Abandons Suits Against Oregon OSHA for Formaldehyde Findings

A company that makes a hair straightening product, Brazilian Blowout, has dropped a lawsuit that it had filed against Oregon OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) challeging the agency's findings that the product contained formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.

OSHA had tested 105 samples of the air product from 54 hair salons and reported significant formaldehyde findings. The lawsuit, filed by the company, alleged that the testing was incorrect.

The report had concluded, "Oregon OSHA and CROET have concluded that there are meaningful risks to salon workers  when they are confronted with these hair smoothing products. Effective control of those risks depends upon accurate information regarding the potential hazards and the control measures  available, which in turn begins with an accurate understanding of the ingredients and the potential harm they may cause."

Related articles

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Insurance Company Liable in Tort for Delay of Medical Treatment

A US District Court Judge held that a valid cause of action existed directly against an insurance company for the delay treatment to an injured worker. The court, in denying a motion for summary judgment, held that when an insurer negligently ignored the advice of its own medical expert concerning medical treatment, a claim against the insurer itself was not barred by the Exclusivity Doctrine.


Davis v One Beacon, et al., 2010 WL 2629053 (D.N.J.) Civil Action No. 09-cv-4179 (NLH)(KMW) Decided June 28, 2010.


Click here for more information on how Jon L Gelman can assist you in a claim for workers' Compensation claim benefits. You may e-mail Jon  Gelman or call 1-973-696-7900.


Monday, April 12, 2010

The Health Reform Act Charts a New Course for Occupational Health Care

The occupational healthcare program embodied in the recently enacted legislation has the potential for being the most extensive, effective and innovated system ever enacted for delivering medical care to injured workers. The “Libby Care” provisions, and its envisioned prodigies, will embrace more exposed workers, diseases and geographical locations, than any other program of the past. Potential pilot programs  will now be available to injured workers and their families who have become victims of the failed workers’ compensation occupational disease medical care system.
The legislation initially establishes a program for the identification, monitoring and treatment of those who were exposed to asbestos in Libby Montana where W.R. Grace formerly operated an asbestos (vermiculite) mine producing, among other things, attic insulation. The plant belched thousands of pounds of asbestos fiber into the air of the geographical area daily. Libby Montana has been declared a Federal Superfund Site and the asbestos disease that remains as its legacy has been declared a National Public Health Emergency.
The newly enacted national health care law will have profound effect upon the treatment of occupational disease.  Placed deep within the text of the bill (H.R. 3590), on page 836 (Section 1881A Medical Coverage for Individuals Exposed to Environmental Health Hazards), is the new occupational medical care model, “Libby Care.”  The Manager’s Amendment, embracing the concept of universal occupational health care, inserted in the final moments of the debate, will make all the difference in world to the future of medical care and the handling of work-related illnesses.
What We Learned From History
Historically it is well known that occupational diseases are problematic issues confronting workers’ compensation.They are problematic for all stakeholders in the system. For employers, it is difficult to defend a claim that may occur over a lengthy working period, ie. 280 days per year. Defending occupational disease claims has always been an elusive and a costly goal for employers and insurance carriers. Employees also are confronted with obstacles in obtaining timely medical benefits. Occupational disease claims are universally contested matter and medical care is therefore delayed until the claim is successfully litigated and potentially appealed. This process results in delay and denial of medical care and sometimes death.
In the 1950’s the insurance industry put tag-along verbiage in the statute to modify the 1911 workers’ compensation act to encompass occupational disease claims. This was not a philanthropic gesture, but one rather intended to shield Industry from rapidly spreading silicosis liability in civil actions emerging in the 1950s.
Over time, the failure of the workers’ compensation system to provide adequate medical care to injured workers suffering from occupational illness has given rise to the emergence of several attempted collateral benefit systems by the Federal government. The Black Lung Act-The Federal Coal Mine and Safety Act of 1969 established the Federal Black Lung Trust Fund, which obtained its revenue from the assessment of a percentage tonnage fee imposed on the entire Industry. In October 2000, the Federal government established The Energy Employees Occupational Compensation Program Act that provided a Federal bailout of liability for the monopolistic beryllium industry. The hastily enacted Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003 (SEPA) shielded pharmaceutical manufacturers from liability.  Following the horrific events of September 11, 2001, the Federal government quickly established The Victims Compensation Fund to compensate the victims and their families through an administrative system.
The largest transfer of economic wealth in the United States from Industry to the private sector, other than in the Attorney General’s thirty-eight State tobacco litigation, emanated from asbestos litigation which had its geneses in workers’ compensation.   The late Irving Selikoff, MD’s pioneering efforts in providing expert testimony, based upon his sentinel studies of asbestos workers in Paterson, NJ, created the trigger mechanism for a massive wave of claims for occupational health care. The program never did adequately nor efficiently or expeditiously provide medical care.
The workers’ compensation system did not provide an adequate remedy because of a constellation of reasons, and subsequently, the wave spread to civil litigation out of desperation for adequate benefits. Asbestos litigation has been named, "The Longest Running Tort” in American history. While the Fairness in Asbestos Resolution Act of 2003, failed to be release from committee, the insurance industry tried to stifle the litigation but the effort failed.  Asbestos litigation expanded into  bankruptcy claims that continue unabated and the epidemic of disease continues. The remaining cases in the Federal court system were transferred to Federal Multi District Litigation (MDL 875) and the majority are finally concluding after twenty years of Panel consolidation. Medical benefits were not a direct component of that system. Unfortunately, asbestos is still not banned in the United States and the legacy of disease continues at historic rates.
The Costs
In a study prepared in 2000 by Dr. Steven Markowitz for a book entitled “Cost of Occupational Injuries  and Illnesses”, it was revealed that the direct medical costs attributed to occupation illness by taxpayers, amount to $51.8 Billion dollars per year for the hospital physicians and pharmaceutical expenses. Overall workers’ compensation is covering 27% percent of the cost. This amounts to 3% of the National Gross National Product. The cost is passed on to: employers, insurance carriers, consumers, injured workers and the taxpayer. Medicare, a target of the cost shifting mechanism employer by Industry, continues its “pay and chase” policy in an effort to seek reimbursement under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. All the stakeholders and the compensation systems have become increasingly bogged down as cost-shifting continues by Industry. The workers' compensation claims process has become stagnant. 
Reportable Data A Questionable Affair
The quantification of occupational illness data has been very problematic as it is based on sources of questionable reliability. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) based its collection on employer driven safety reporting, ieNCCI), keeps its data and procedures under wraps.
Both the NY Times and Nebraska Appleseed have reported that there exists underreporting of occupational disease conditions in epic proportions. They report that the elements of fear and intimidation directed to injured workers compound the defense attitude of employers and the insurance industry resulting in a massive underreporting of occupationally related medical conditions.
Increased Hurtles for Compensability
There have been attempts over the years to integrate more claims statutorily into the workers’ compensation system to shield employers from civil action and resultant large liability verdicts. This resulted in a flood of occupational exposure claims into the workers’ compensation arena. An effort in the mid-1980’s, following the asbestos litigation explosion, was by Industry to contain costs and restrict the payment of occupational disease claims even further in the workers’ compensation.
The initial effort was to create higher threshold standards and requirements in the area of mental stress claims. That was quickly followed by efforts to limit orthopedic and neurological carpal tunnel claims.  Restrictive language interpreting what is peculiar to employment further limited all occupational disease claims.
Furthermore, scientific evidence proof requirements became increasingly difficult to surmount. Daubert type arguments emerged by the defense in the nations’ workers’ compensation forums where simplicity of a remedial and efficient benefit delivery program had existed in the past. Where a biological marker was not present, as was in asbestos exposure claims, the establishment of causal relationship was universally challenged.
Pre-existing and co-existing factors soon became other hurtles for injured workers and their families.  Medical histories of orthopedic difficulties such as back conditions soon complicated repetitive motion trauma litigation. Co-existing and pre-existing smoking habits, family genetics and obesity were yet another obstacle to recovery.
Societal Habits Changed
Life and the way we look at work have changed dramatically with the onset of technology. Off-premises work is becoming more and more common with the advent of Internet access and economic globalization. Defining the barriers between work and pleasure has grown to be exceedingly difficult.
People are working harder and longer. More chronic conditions are prevalent in older workers. Disease increases with age and results in more total disability claims.
Occupational Medical Costs
The compensability of occupational claims is much more difficult to sustain in court. In recent studies over 99.9% of occupational deaths and 93.8% of the medical costs of occupational disease were held to be non-compensable. Over 50% of the lifetime medical costs are incurred during the last year of one’s life.
The Legacy of The Libby Montana Gold Rush
In 1881 gold miners discovered vermiculite, a form of asbestos in Libby, Montana. In 1920 The Zonolite Company was established and began to commercially mine vermiculite. W.R. Grace bought the mining operations in 1963. In 1990 the mine was closed and production ended.
For decades W.R. Grace belched over 5,000 pounds of asbestos into the air in and around Libby on a daily basis. The residents who worked at the plant and their families and household contacts were exposed to asbestos fiber.  Mineworkers brought home the asbestos on their clothing. The unknowing inhabitants and their families  used the asbestos to fill their gardens, their driveways, the high school track, the little league field and in their attics for insulation.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) visited Libby in 1999 and investigated the incidence of disease and the contamination of the site. The EPA declared Libby a Superfund site in October 2002 and a physical clean-up began of the geographical area. The question of who would pay for the medical care of Libby remained an unknown.
A Manager’s Amendment
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, utilizing a mechanism known as “A Manager’s Amendment,” at the last moment, modified the Senate’s version of the Health Care Reform Bill. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed the Senate, ultimate cleared the House and was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. Section 10323, Medicare Coverage for Individuals Exposed to Environmental Health Hazards, 2009 Cong US HR 3590, 111th Congress, 1st Session (December 31, 2009).
Senator Bacus said,  “This provision is important because it will provide vital medical services to American who—through no fault of their own—have suffered horrible effects from their exposure to deadly poisons. It will provide vital medical services we owe these Americans under our commitment in the Superfund Act.”  The amendment initially provides for screening and medical care to residents of the Libby Montana asbestos contaminated site that was owned and operated by W.R. Grace. It essentially provides for universal health care.
“Libby Care” Is The New Occupational Medical Care Model Legislation
The Libby site qualified for the medical program because the hazardous asbestos contaminated site in Libby was deemed to be “a public health emergency” on June 17, 2009 as defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). While there are 1700 designated Superfund sites, Libby is the first site in the history of the program that has been designated as “a public health emergency.” The program may be expanded in adopted to other communities at the discretion of the Secretary of of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 
The plan authorizes a grant for initial medical screening purposes. The screening would determine if a medical condition is present that is attributable to the environmental exposure. It allows those individuals with a diagnosed medical condition due to the environmental exposure at the site to get Medicare services. The Secretary of the Department of HHS may establish additional pilot programs to provide additional medical care appropriate for the residents of contaminated communities so designated. The delivery of Medicare medical benefits will be directed to those “who have suffered horrible effects from their exposure to deadly poisons.”
The purpose of the legislation is  “…. to furnish such comprehensive, coordinated and cost-effective care to individuals…..” p2224 l3-1. It mandates the furnishing of “Flexible Benefits and Services,” for items, benefits or services NOT covered or authorized by the Act. It further authorizes the institution of “Innovative Reimbursement Methodologies,” for reimbursement subject to offsets for individuals “eligible to receive public or private plan benefits or legal agreement.” p2226 ll8-11. The Secretary of HHS will maintain “waiver authority.”
Charting A New Course
After a century of struggle, the United States now embarks upon a new course for occupational medical care. The law charts a new path for the delivery of  occupational disease medical benefits on a timely basis. It will permit researchers an avenue for the collection of epidemiological data so that the workplace can be made safer. All will benefit. The innovative legislation provides for a long awaited and much needed initiative to provide an efficient, responsive and coordinated treatment plan and preventive health program that hopefully will expand and will vastly improve occupational health care.