Copyright

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

Monday, December 10, 2012

US Supreme Court to Determine Who is A Dependent

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) it's going to come intricately involved in determining who is a beneficiary  dependency benefits in workers' compensation claims when it renders it's decision on the validity of same-sex marriages. The decision to be rendered by SCOTUS will have tremendous impact on evaluating dependency benefits throughout the nation.

When an injury on the job injury dependency benefits or afforded to certain individuals. Those include statutory dependence such as spouses and children.

Dependency status confers an obligation by the insurance company/employer to pay benefits for extended periods of time. Dependency benefits are usually paid to the surviving spouse for the duration of their lifetime.

"The US Supreme Court [official website] on Friday granted certiorari [order list, PDF] in two cases dealing with same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder]. InHollingsworth v. Perry [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court will consider the validity ofProposition 8 [JURIST news archive], a California referendum that revoked same-sex marriage rights. Same-sex marriage was briefly legal in California following a state Supreme Court decision and then overturned with a constitutional amendment created by Proposition 8. Early in the proceedings, the state of California declined to defend the law, and the backers of Proposition 8, ProtectMarriage.com [advocacy website], successfully intervened. The court will consider whether Proposition 8 is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of theFourteenth Amendment as well as if the Proposition 8 supporters had standing to intervene under Article III [LII Cornell backgrounders].

"The court also granted United States v. Windsor [docket; cert. petition, PDF], which examines the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive]. The case concerns Edith Windsor [ACLU backgrounder], a widow who had a legal same-sex marriage under Canadian and New York law but was denied spousal deduction for federal estate taxes when her wife died. The Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of DOMA under the Fifth Amendment [LII Cornell backgrounder]. Prior to her challenge, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it would no longer defend DOMA in courts, and in response, the US House of Representatives formed [JURIST reports] the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to defend the law. The court will also consider if BLAG had standing to intervene and if the DOJ's refusal to defend the law deprives the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. The Windsor court held homosexuals to an intermediate scrutiny standard of review. The other petitions concerning same-sex marriage remain on hold.


Excerpted from Jurist: Supreme Court to review constitutionality of same-sex marriage
....
Jon L.Gelman of Wayne NJ, helping injured workers and their families for over 4 decades, is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson).  

Read more about "dependency" and workers' compensation
Oct 26, 2012
The child of an infertile woman has yet another hurtle of proof to establish dependency status in a workers' compensation as the NJ Supreme Court decided that a formal adoption is necessary for an infertile woman to be ...
Jun 09, 2008
The NJ Supreme Court reversed a ruling of the Appellate Division and declared the Legislature's 2004 amendment to the workers' compensation act not to have retroactive application. The Amendment increased benefits to ...
Apr 20, 2009
Court Awards Dependency Benefits to Police Officer Who Committed Suicide. The dependents of a deceased police officer will receive benefits as a result of the officer's work-related suicide related to stress. Wilde v Township ...
Mar 21, 2012
The US Supreme Court, in a matter that may have widespread impact on workers' compensation dependency benefits, heard oral arguments in Astrue v Capato concerning whether a child conceived after the death of a ...

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Path to Federalization: A National Workers Compensation System--US Supreme Court Validates

United States Supreme Court has taken a giant leap forward to facilitate the Federalization of the entire nation's workers' compensation system. By it's recent decision, upholding the mandate for insurance care under the Affordable Health Care for America Act (ACA) 2009, it has set the precedent to federalize the nation's fragmented and chaotic workers' compensation medical delivery system.

John G. Roberts Jr.,
Chief Justice US Supreme Court
Validating Mechanism
In a 5 to 4 ruling, Chief Justice Roberts validated the individual mandate as a permissible exercise of congressional power under the Taxing Clause of the US Constitution. Under 26 U.S.C. Section 5000A. The law requires that: (a) an individual must maintain minimum essential coverage for each month beginning after 2012; and (b) if there is a failure to maintain minimum essential coverage, a "penalty" is imposed "on the taxpayer" of $695 per year or 2.5% of family income, whichever is greater. The penalty "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes."

The Chief Justice, writing for himself, stated, "Every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality." If it is "fairly possible" to interpret the statute as merely imposing a tax on those who've failed to purchase insurance. Writing for the majority, the Chief Justice stated, that the penalty is not a tax for anti-injunction act purposes. The Court, he wrote, needs to look beyond the label when assessing the constitutionality. For constitutional purposes Justice Roberts reasoned that the penalty may be considered as a tax when: it is not so high that there is no choice; and it is not limited to willful violations; and the penalty is collected by the IRS through normal means.

Constitution of the
United States
The Court indicated that the assessment is not really a "penalty." "Taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new," the Chief Justice wrote. He reasoned for the Court that there are no negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, because beyond requiring a payment to IRS, Congress anticipated that some 4 million people would pay the penalty, and Congress did not treat them as "outlaws."

While certain taxes are prohibited under the U.S. Constitution, the penalty under the Affordable Health Care for America Act 2009 is not barred. The Court reasoned that the Constitution states, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion of the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." The majority of the Court held that a tax on "going without health insurance" does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax since it is triggered by certain specific circumstances.


The US Supreme Court previously validated compulsory workers' compensation programs. Compulsory compensation systems have been held not to be an arbitrary classification contrary to the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution, 14th Amendment.  The state-enacted systems were created for the protection of the lives, health and safety of the employees.  The systems provide payment of compensation through a state mandated system for injuries to employees or for the death of employees resulting from injuries related to work, regardless of fault.  The compensation systems are held as a simple, inexpensive and expeditious method of providing recovery to employees who are injured in a highly organized and modern industrial employment environment.  New York Central Railroad Company v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 37 S.Ct. 247, 61 L.Ed. 667 (1917). See also, Lower Vein Coal Co. v. Industrial Board of Indiana, 255 U.S. 144, 41 S.Ct. 252, 65 L.Ed. 555 (1921) and In re Asbestos Litigation, 829 F.2d 1233 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied 485 U.S. 1029, 108 S.Ct. 1586, 99 L.Ed.2d 901 (1988).

Medical Delivery & Fees
Generally, the ACA provides a much needed national structure for the regulation, delivery, and enforcement of medical coverage. The ACA contains significant fraud and abuse provisions. In 2010 the law significantly expanded the government's authority to prosecute Faults Claims Act (FCA) cases. In 2011-2012 the ACA triggers increased provider screening, oversight and reporting. The ACA also establishes the Independent Payment Advisory Board to evaluate fee schedules and expands the scope of Medicaid and CHIP payments. 


Unlike most State compensation systems that presently struggle with both expeditious medical delivery as well the value and responsibility of medical care, the ACA provides a uniform system and expeditious system. The fragmented network of complex, dilatory and inconsistent results in the State programs have been described recently by national experts as "irrational" and "unjust."  They characterize the present compensation programs as "....dizzying and frustrating in its complexity, and apparent irrationality,"  and  they conclude that "a substantial proportion of persons with work-related disabilities do not receive workers' compensation benefits," and in need of a better format. 

Non-Traditional Revenue Stream
In addition to the widely publicized tax for non-compliance, the ACA contains several other innovative revenue provisions that will provide additional funding from collateral sources without burdening al employers globally. In 2010 an indoor tanning service tax was implemented. In 2011 annual fee was instituted on pharmaceutical companies as well as  an increased penalty for early withdrawal from health savings accounts. In 2013 the following provisions go into effect: the Medicare payroll tax will increase for high-income individuals, an excise tax on medical device manufacturers, limits on Flexible Spending Accounts, and the elimination of the deduction for Employer Part D subsidy. In 2014 there will be an annual fee on health insurance plans. In 2018 there will be an excise tax and high-cost plans commonly referred to as the "Cadillac tax."





"Libby Care"--Universal Care 
Center for Asbestos Related Disease
Libby, MT.
A provision of the Act, that has already been implemented, provides for the treatment of medical conditions, including asbestosis & mesothelioma, arising out the Libby, Montana asbestos contamination. The industrially caused   catastrophe in Libby has resulted in widespread illness and death. The ACA provides medical attention to those exposed to occupational toxins. The Center for Asbestos Related Disease is now operating in Libby, MT. The “Libby Care” provisions, and its envisioned prodigies, will embrace more exposed workers, diseases and geographical locations, than any other program of the past. This type of program, minimally, needs to be expanded to include all occupational illness nationally.



The Future: Universal Health Care
Landmarks on the Path to Federalization
It is very doubtful that ACA repeal legislation, to be offered by the Republicans in the House will pass Congress, nor will the President sign it.. There may be some technical and substantive revisions to the ACA in the next Congress. If there is a mixed political government after the next election,  the ACA will be implemented and go forward as the law of the land.


History reveals that a series of efforts have been made by the Federal government  to federalize medical care for industrial accidents and illnesses. Those efforts demonstrate a commitment to bring the nation ever closer to a universal care medical program incorporating the entire patchwork of workers' compensation medical delivery systems. The US Supreme Court has accelerated the nation down that promising path.
....
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). 

More on improving the medical delivery system

Jun 14, 2012
Yesterday the US Congress passed and sent to the President, The World Trade Center Health Program, marking yet another advance on the path to federalize the nation's workers' compensation program. The Federally .
Dec 23, 2010
Yesterday the US Congress passed and sent to the President, The World Trade Center Health Program, marking yet another advance on the path to federalize the nation's workers' compensation program. The Federally ...
Feb 15, 2011
In December 2010 US Congress passed and President Obama signed, The World Trade Center Health Program, marking yet another advance on the path to federalize the nation's workers' compensation program.
Jul 05, 2010
The trend toward Federalization of workers' compensation benefits took a giant step forward by recent Presidential action creating the British Petroleum Oil Compensation Fund. While the details remain vague, the broad and ...

Jul 13, 2010
As The Path To Federalization expands, this debate will expand. A recent study by the Center for American Progress addresses these concerns. "Health threats from the oil spill may linger unseen, perhaps for more than a ...
Mar 16, 2011
Historically The Federal government's role has been to rise to the occasion and walk further down a path to federalization. On a smaller scale than the potential consequences of the Japanesse debacle, the US was first in line ...
Mar 05, 2011
Nationally, advocates to improve the delivery of medical benefits to injured workers have urged federalization of the medical delivery system into a single payer approach through universal health care. ... Compensation Claim Draws Major Public Attention (workers-compensation.blogspot.com); Vermont Governor Sets Out to Lead U.S. to True Universal Coverage (huffingtonpost.com); The World Trade Center Health Program Expands The Path to Federalization ...
Apr 03, 2010
The recent health care reform legislation provided for the Libby Care which will provide universal medical care for victims of asbestos related disease. The plan is a pilot program for occupational disease medical care fully ...
May 19, 2010
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 ...

Related articles

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Preparing For US Supreme Court Health Care Decision Day

English: The United States Supreme Court, the ...
English: The United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, in 2010. Top row (left to right): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Bottom row (left to right): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
“At the Supreme Court, those who know don't talk,” she said. “And those who talk don't know.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Are You My Mother?



Sorting out dependency status in a workers' compensation claim can be as confusing as the questions classic novel posed in P.D. Eastman's children's story, "Are You My Mother?" The US Supreme Court ruled, (Astrue v. Capato) that for the eligibility requirements of Social Security, that children conceived after a father's death are not to be considered a dependent. In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) will pose yet another intriguing question for the multitude of state workers' compensation programs to sort out.

Click here to read more: Supreme Court Denies Benefits for Children Conceived After Father's Death (Jurist)

Related articles

Thursday, January 12, 2012

US Supreme Court Rules Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Covers Work-Related Injuries

English: Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of...Image via Wikipedia
Justice Clarence Thomas

In an historic ruling yesterday the US Supreme Court held that The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act [OCS] governs those who work on oil drilling platforms and other fixed structures beyond state maritime boundaries, and workers are eligible for compensation for "any injury occurring as the result of operations conducted on the [OCS]." 


For complete coverage of this case click here: The Jurist

"Although the Ninth Circuit’s test may not be the easiest to administer, it best reflects the text of §1333(b), which establishes neither a situs-of-injury nor a "but for" test. We are confident that ALJs and courts will be able to determine whether an injured employee has established a significant causal link between the injury he suffered and his employer's on-OCS extractive operations. Although we expect that employees injured while performing tasks on the OCS will regularly satisfy the test, whether an employee injured while performing an off-OCS task qualifies—like Valladolid, who died while tasked with onshore scrap metal consolidation—is a question that will depend on the individual circumstances of each case." Justice Clarence Thomas

Pacific Operators Offshore LLP v. Valladolid 
.....


Monday, December 5, 2011

US Supreme Court Maybe Asked to Rule on CMS Issue: "The Doctrine of Equitable Allocation"

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is entitled to complete reimbursement of Medicare payments under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP) from a liability claim even though the beneficiary claimed that the settlement required allocation due to the law allocating liability.


I reported on this case last week:
The Doctrine of Equitable Allocation Not Applicable in a Medicare Secondary Payment Reimbursement Claim



A recent news report indicates that appeal maybe sought to the US Supreme Court.

Medicare payment ruling may hinder workers comp settlements

"A federal appeals court decision that allows Medicare to claim nearly half of a man's liability settlement could hinder insurers' ability to settle such claims and may be an issue that reaches the U.S. Supreme Court."