Workers' Compensation: Search results for AIG

Showing posts sorted by date for query AIG. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Do I Need To File A Tax Return On My Workers Compensation?

Today's post comes from guest author Paul J. McAndrew, Jr. from Paul McAndrew Law Firm.

If you received workers’ compensation benefits, you may be wondering if you will need to report this money to the IRS and pay taxes on it. Under the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Act, money that you receive as workers’ compensation benefits is not taxable, with a few exceptions. You will have to pay taxes on your work comp benefits if:

if the benefits are retirement plan benefits (this is true even if you retired due to disability)
if part of your workers’ compensation benefit money lowers the amount you receive from your Social Security or Railroad Retirement Benefits. In that case, that the part of your workers compensation benefits is considered part of your Social Security (or RRB) and may be taxable.

If you return to work, your salary will be taxable again, as is it was before you received workers’ compensation benefits.

NJ Workers Compensation Ranked Nation's 7th Highest Premium Rate

A recent study published by the State of Oregon rank's New Jersey with the 7th highest workers' compensation premium in the United States.

More on Workers' Compensation Premiums

Workers' Compensation: Health Care Continues to Eat Away at ...

Sep 12, 2012

Throughout the nation Workers' Compensation systems have been impacted by health care costs that now take a large piece of the premium dollar. Traditional health care offered by employers mirrors the same problem of ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Workers' Compensation: Premium Fraud: North Carolina Man ...

Mar 04, 2012

Premium Fraud: North Carolina Man Sentenced on Workers' Compensation Insurance Scam. English: The Seal of the United States Federal... Image via Wikipedia. Wifredo A. Ferrer, United States Attorney for the Southern ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

AIG settles workers compensation insurance complaint with all 50 ...

Jun 05, 2012

The settlement is a result of AIG misreporting $2.12 billion of workers' compensation premium as other lines of insurance. As part of the settlement agreement, AIG agreed to pay a national penalty of $100 million, and $46.5...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

NY Work Comp Premiums Reportedly Highest Assessments in Nation

Sep 11, 2012

The defense based NY Workers' Compensation Policy Institue has published a report reflecting that NY has the highest premium assessments in the country for workers' compensation. Note that NJ is not far behind when ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Friday, July 27, 2012

International Business Expands Profits of Liberty Mutual

Liberty Mutual Holding Company Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively “LMHC” or the “Company”) today reported net income of $139 million and $598 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, increases of $318 million and $413 million over the same periods in 2011.

“Second quarter premium growth of 8% was driven by continued momentum in U.S. personal lines, rate increases in U.S. commercial lines, and robust international results despite significant strengthening of the dollar,” said David H. Long, President and CEO of Liberty Mutual Insurance. “Additionally our profitability improved significantly in the quarter despite catastrophe losses continuing to run at an elevated level. The quarter was a busy one, including a significant debt restructuring, the sale of our Argentina workers compensation company, assimilation of KIT in Russia, and gaining approval to begin writing business in India.”

And continues to argue for increased higher US rates:

"Liberty Mutual’s chief executive left no doubt on where he believes the blame lies for inadequate workers’ compensation rate levels, criticizing states—New York and Massachusetts in particular—for not approving steeper increases."

Read the complete article:
Liberty’s Long Faults States on Workers’ Comp Rates; Q2 Profit Positive (Property Casualty 360)

More articles about Liberty Mutual

Liberty Mutual Suffers 92% Loss In First Quarter Profits

May 06, 2009

Liberty Mutual reported that its 1st Quarter profits fell 92%. The company sustained loss of net income. This it reported $28 Million and the same quarter last year it had reported $360 Million in income. Liberty Mutual sustained ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Workers' Compensation: Liberty Mutual's Rating Falls as the ...

Sep 29, 2008

Standard and Poor's has announced that Liberty Mutual's rating has been lowered from A to A-. This happened as another rating agency, Fitch, placed Liberty Mutual Inter-company Pool (on "Rating Watch Evolving" status.

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Workers' Compensation: AIG Claims Conspiracy by Liberty and ...

Sep 30, 2009

In an amended complaint filed last week in the Federal Court in Chicago (USDCT N.D. Ill.), AIG alleged that Liberty Mutual and Hartford/ACE entered into a conspiracy to underreport their premiums. Premium calculations ...

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Workers' Compensation: Parent Corporation Has 3rd Party Lien Rights

Dec 13, 2008

Liberty Mutual was permitted to "pierce the corporate veil." The Court declared, "...To do otherwise would be to condone a ... LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. CIPRIANO. Decided Dec. 10, 2008. Posted by Jon L.

http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

OSHA cites Wal-Mart Super Center for repeat and serious safety hazards - proposes $52,600 in fines

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for alleged repeat and serious violations of workplace safety standards at the Wal-Mart Super Center store located at 139 Merchant Place in Cobleskill. The retailer faces a total of $52,600 in proposed fines following inspections by OSHA's Albany Area Office.

OSHA found that emergency exit access from a receiving and storage area was obstructed by the storage of pallets containing merchandise and equipment, and employees were not able to safely operate pallet jacks in aisles and passageways that were obstructed by stacked merchandise. In addition, portable fire extinguishers were not mounted and located in safely accessible areas, and the lack of a protective fitting and strain relief for an electrical conduit entering a control box presented an electrical hazard.

These conditions resulted in the issuance of citations with $48,200 in proposed fines for three repeat violations. 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. In this case, OSHA had previously cited Wal-Mart for similar hazards at stores in Newington, Conn.; Chelmsford and West Boylston, Mass.; Centralia and Joliet, Ill.; Coshocton, Ohio; and Lewisville, Texas.

"The recurring nature of these hazards is disturbing and needs to be effectively addressed," said Kimberly Castillon, OSHA's area director in Albany. "An employer with multiple locations, such as Wal-Mart, needs to ensure that hazards are identified, corrected and prevented at all of its workplaces."

Additionally, a citation with a $4,400 fine has been issued for a serious violation involving a lack of eye, face and hand protection as well as safety training for employees operating cardboard balers. 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.

"One step an employer can take to protect its workers against on-the-job hazards is to develop and maintain an effective illness and injury prevention program in which management and employees work together to proactively identify and prevent hazardous conditions," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York.

Arkansas-based Wal-Mart has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

To ask questions, obtain compliance assistance, file a complaint, or report workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, the public should call OSHA's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742) or the agency's Albany office at 518-464-4338.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Monday, June 11, 2012

OSHA fines Clifton, NJ, stucco contractor more than $108,000 for exposing workers to fall hazards

The seal of the United States Department of Labor (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited DD Stucco and Renovation LLC for six safety — including two willful — violations related to fall hazards at a Mountain Lakes work site. OSHA opened an inspection in November 2011 as part of its local emphasis program on falls and proposed a total of $108,240 in penalties.

"This company is risking worker injury and possible death by failing to provide proper fall protection," said Kris Hoffman, director of OSHA's Parsippany Area Office, which conducted the inspection. "Employers need to know that falls are the leading cause of fatalities in the construction industry, and proper precautions must be taken."

The willful violations carry a $92,400 penalty and are due to a lack of fall protection for employees working on a scaffold that was not fully planked. A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health.

Four serious violations, which carry a $15,840 penalty, are for a scaffold that was not secured to the structure or supported on an adequate firm foundation, unstable objects used to support the scaffold and employees climbing across braces to access the scaffold. 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.

In April, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis announced a new campaign to provide employers and workers with life-saving information and educational materials about working safely from ladders, scaffolds and roofs in an effort to prevent deadly falls in the construction industry. In 2010, more than 10,000 construction workers were injured as a result of falling while working from heights, and more than 250 workers were killed. OSHA's fall prevention campaign was developed in partnership with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and NIOSH's National Occupational Research Agenda program. More detailed information is available in English and Spanish on fall protection standards at http://www.osha.gov/stopfalls.

"Fall hazards involving these and other safety issues can be avoided when an illness and injury prevention program is developed and implemented, and management and workers proactively identify and eliminate hazardous conditions," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York.

The citations can be viewed at http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/DDStucco_316089713_0521_12.pdf*.

DD Stucco and Renovation is headquartered in Clifton and had three workers at the Mountain Lakes site. The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with the OSHA area director, or contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

To ask questions, obtain compliance assistance, file a complaint, or report workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, the public should call OSHA's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742) or the agency's Parsippany office at 973-263-1003.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA's role is to promote safe and healthful working conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, outreach and education. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

AIG settles workers compensation insurance complaint with all 50 states, DC for $146.5M

Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty today announced that asettlement agreement between the American International Group, Inc. (AIG) and its affiliates with all 50 states and the District of Columbia has become fully effective. The settlement is a result of AIG misreporting $2.12 billion of workers’ compensation premium as other lines of insurance. As part of the settlement agreement, AIG agreed to pay a national penalty of $100 million, and $46.5 million in additional premium taxes and assessments.

The Office of Insurance Regulation (Office) will receive $5.6 million in fines and penalties with an additional $8.7 million split between the Department of Financial Services (DFS) Division of Workers’ Compensation, Department of Revenue (DOR) and the Florida Workers’ Compensation Insurance Guaranty Association (FWCIGA).

"AIG systematically underreported workers' compensation insurance premium by putting this premium into the general liability or commercial automobile liability categories,” stated Commissioner McCarty. "The practical effect of this misreporting was to report premium in lines of business with lower residual market obligations or premium tax rates and assessments. I am pleased by the collaborative multi-state investigative effort that will yield millions of dollars in unpaid taxes owed to the states."

The lead states issued their multi-state examination report in December 2010 and entered into a related regulatory settlement agreement. The agreement was subject to several conditions, all of which have now been resolved. One of those was a $450 million residual market settlement that was approved by the U.S. District Court in February 2012. The remaining open condition, a settlement with insurance guaranty associations, was satisfied on May 30, 2012 when a $25 million settlement agreement was signed.

Florida was one of the lead states in this multistate examination along with Delaware, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. As part of the agreement, AIG entered into a compliance plan concerning the financial reporting of its workers’ compensation premium, and going forward agreed to be monitored and subject to a follow-up examination by the lead states in two years.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Law to Ban Medical Expense Claims Proposed

Legislation (A-2652) [introduced May 10, 2012] has been proposed in NJ that would ban charging workers’ compensation claimants for medical expenses and gives the Division of Workers’ Compensation sole jurisdiction over work-related medical claims. The law would be a positive initiative for all parties as it will subject medical provider claims to an exclusive remedy and consolidate the claims before a single administrative agency for resolution.

The legislation will be the subject of consideration by the NJ Assembly Labor Committee on Monday, May 14, 2012.

Click here to read: Clearing the Workers' Compensation Benefit Highway of Medical Expense Land Mines

By John H. Geaney and Jon L. Gelman
"Medical expenses in contested workers’ compensation cases are now a significant and troublesome issue resulting in uncertainty, delay and potential future liability. Th recent NJ Supreme Court decision, University of Mass. Memorial Hospital v. Christodoulou, 180 N.J. 334 (2004) has left the question of how to adjudicate medical benefits that were conditionally paid or paid in error. Presently there is no exclusively defined procedure to determine the allocation, apportionment of primary responsibility for unauthorized medical expenses and reimbursement."

Statement of the Bill

"This bill prohibits the charging of workers’ compensation
claimants for medical expenses that have been authorized by the
employer or its carrier or its third party administrator, that have
been paid by the employer, its carrier or third party administrator
pursuant to pursuant to the workers’ compensation law, or which
been determined by the Division of Workers’ Compensation to
be the responsibility of the employer, its carrier or third party
administrator. The bill gives the division sole jurisdiction over
disputed work-related medical claims, and directs the division to
provide procedures to resolve those disputes, including procedural
requirements for medical providers or any other party to the
dispute. Finally, the bill provides that the treatment of an injured

worker or the payment of workers’ compensation to an injured

worker or dependent of an injured or deceased worker shall not be
delayed because of a claim by a medical provider. "

Further Reference:
NJ Task Force Report on Medical Provider Claims
"During our meetings, it came to the attention of the Task Force that “balance billing” is a
problem. This is the practice wherein authorized medical providers accept fees paid by the
carrier and then issue a bill to the petitioner for any remaining balance. In an effort to eradicate
this practice, the Task Force recommends an amendment to N.J.S.A. 34:15-15. Section 15 of the
Act requires that employers furnish and pay for physicians, surgeons and hospital services for the
injured worker. Having reviewed the statute and the case law, the Task Force believes that there
is a need to clarify that balance billing in the workers’ compensation setting is inappropriate.

Accordingly, the Task Force recommends the following amendment to N.J.S.A. 34:15-15 which
we would propose would appear as a paragraph between the final two paragraphs of that section.

This additional language would read as follows:
“Fees for treatments that have been authorized by the employer or
its carrier or its third party administrator, or which have been
determined by the court to be the responsibility of the employer, its
carrier or third party administrator, shall not be charged against or
collectible from the injured worker. Sole jurisdiction for any
disputed medical charge arising from a workers’ compensation
claim shall be vested in the Division of Workers’ Compensation.”

Monday, April 23, 2012

NJ Supreme Court To Rule on Several Critical Issues

The NJ Supreme Court has before it three issues of critical importance concerning workers' compensation including: the standard of proof in a fatal heart claim; remedy for the failure of an insurance company to provide medical care, and the "exclusivity rule." These decisions have the potential to be landmark decisions.

1. Standard of Proof in a Fatal Heart Claim: Does the record support this workers' compensation claim under N.J.S.A. 34:15-7.2, which sets the standard of proof governing claims based on injury or death from cardiovascular causes?

Workers' Compensation benefits were awarded for a pulmonary embolism causally related to sedentary work activity. A NJ Appellate Court awarded benefits for the development of a pulmonary embolism precipitated by the inactivity of sitting long hours at a desk job.

Certification granted: 2/14/12

Posted: 2/14/12

A-71-11 James P. Renner v. AT&T (068744)

2. Remedy for the Failure of the Insurance Company to Provide Medical Care:

May an employee who suffered a work-related injury pursue a common-law cause of action against a workers’ compensation carrier for willful failure to comply with court orders compelling it to provide medical treatment when the delay or denial of treatment causes the employee’s condition to worsen?

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.

Certification granted 6/7/11
Posted 6/10/11
Argued: 3/26/12
A-112-10 Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (067640)

3. The Exclusivity Rule:

Under the circumstances of this case, which include a finding by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration that the accident was the result of a “willful violation” of its regulations, did the employer’s action constitute an “intentional wrong” that would preclude immunity under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 of the workers’ compensation statute?

NJ Courts have held that trench accidents were not a mere fact of industrial life and were beyond intent of Act's immunity provision. A claim was permitted directly against the employer in addition to the workers' compensation action.

Certification granted 1/27/11

Posted 1/28/11

Argued: 10/12/11

A-69-10 Kenneth Van Dunk, Sr. v. Reckson Associates Realty Corp. (066949)

Related articles

Saturday, April 21, 2012

The New Non-Subscriber Opt-Out Plan Is Emerging As The Alternative to Traditional Workers' Compensation

Given birth by Bechtel in Massachusetts over a decade ago, nurtured by ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 USCS § 1002) ) and fed by the increasing frustrations of employers and employees throughout the nation, the new non-subscription Opt-Out Plan has emerged as a leading alternative solution to traditional workers' compensation coverage.

It has been reported that since its formal adoption by Oklahoma last week, David DePaolo, the knowledgeable CEO of WorkCompCentral (and cycling enthusiast) reports that other states, including: Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana and Tennessee, will have legislation introduced to statutorily recognize the concept.

Related articles

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Maine Passes Laws Restricting Workers Compensation Benefits

The The Bangor Daily reports that the State of Maine is in the process of legislatively restricting workers ' compensation benefits. The law overhaul's the system with the following changes:

The main elements of the program overhaul include:

• Altered eligibility requirements and the creation of a 10-year cap for employees who are permanently impaired with partial incapacity.

• The elimination of a requirement that employers must continue paying benefits during an appeal.

• A new appeals divisions with authority to create rules of procedure.

• A shortened time period in which a notice of injury must be given, from 90 days to 30 days.

• A changed maximum benefit, from 80 percent of an employee’s net weekly wages to 66 percent of gross weekly wages.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Washington Workers' Advisor Blog Launched

A new blog, Washington Workers' Advisor, has been launched to provide information about law, policy and safety in the workplace. Jay Causey, of the Causey Law Firm said, that the "blog will apply decades of legal experience and expertise to keep the reader informed about trends and developments in workers' compensation law, social security disability, maritime claims, and other legal issues important to working people."

Attorney Jay Causey has practiced for over 30 years in the area of workers' compensation and disability law, including Washington State workers' compensation claims, Social Security Disability cases, Longshore and Harbor workers' Act cases, Defense Base Act claims, and maritime injury. The Causey Law Firm, located in Seattle, Washington, is a nationally recognized firm serving clients in Washington State. It exclusively represents individuals who have been injured or have become disabled.

Related articles

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Federal RICO Claim Not Preempted by a State Workers Compensation Act

The US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a landmark case of widespread significance, has held that a State may not preempt a Federal cause of action under the RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] statute by asserting that workers' compensation claims are exclusive to State jurisdiction. In long and convoluted history, workers in Michigan have asserted that their employer and its workers' compensation carrier, Crawford & Company, and its experts, ie. "cut off doctor," sought to conspire to defeat their pending claims, "property interest," for benefits under the Michigan state workers' compensation act.

Click here to read: Brown et al. v. Cassens Transport Co. et al., 6th Cir Ct of Appeals,http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0095p-06.pdf Decided, April 6, 2012 (Michigan).

"The flaw with the defendants’ argument is that the predicate offense for the RICO action is mail fraud, not the denial of worker’s compensation. “The gravamen of [a] RICO cause of action is not the violation of state law, but rather certain conduct, illegal under state law, which, when combined with an impact on commerce, constitutes a violation of federal law. Therefore, it is not alleged that [the defendants are] subject to ‘liability under’ the [state law]; their liability . . . stems from RICO.” Williams v. Stone, 109 F.3d 890, 895 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 956 (1997). The district court here erred when it stated that this case does not “involve[] a separate and independent tort (theft or conversion or some similar claim)” because the plaintiffs “cannot disentangle their RICO claim from their underlying claim for benefits.” 743 F. Supp. 2d at 666, 668."

For more information and analysis of this case click here: Workers' Compensation Blog

.....

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 work related accident and injuries.

Related articles

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

AIG Exits Workers Compensation As Comp Medical Issues Grow

AIG has written, in what maybe, the first of many obituaries for the nation's patchwork of workers' compensation programs. The third largest excess workers' compensation insurance carrier, has announced that it is leaving the market because of instability in medical costs and the advent of national health care.

To read more click here: BestWeek: Health Care Reforms, Medicare Spending Squeezing Excess Workers’ Comp Line

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Asbestos Disease Claims Continue to Surge

A recent analysis reveals that mesothelioma claims continue to surge. Insurance companies such as Hartford and AIG forced to increase reserves. Exposures from the 1970's are now manifesting in disease and claims for benefits.

Mesothelioma is a rare but fatal condition caused by exposure to asbestos fiber. It is a condition that they remain dormant for as long as 30 years or more before manifesting symptoms.

Asbestos was used as an insulation product and for structural support i many products including ceiling title and other construction material. It was used to insulate boilers and other heat generating devices.

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.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Injured Worker Sues Insurance Company for Malicious Prosecution

A workers' comp claimant has been allowed by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to sue AIG for malicious prosecution as a result of the insurance companies fraud investigation. The workers' compensation insurance company conducted a fraud investigation of the injured worker and forwarded it onto the State agency for prosecution.

"In this proceeding we consider the appeal of AIG Domestic Claims, Inc. (AIGDC), from the denial of its motion for summary judgment. Jesse Maxwell, a workers' compensation claimant, brought suit against AIGDC regarding the company's conduct in referring his claim to the insurance fraud bureau (IFB), communicating with fraud investigators and prosecutors regarding his activity and claim, and using criminal processes to gain leverage in dealings with him. Maxwell sought recovery on theories of malicious prosecution, infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and violation of G.L. c. 93A and G.L. c. 176D. In July, 2007, AIGDC filed a special motion to dismiss the suit pursuant to G.L. c. 231, § 59H, the so-called “anti-SLAPP” statute. That motion was denied and AIGDC's appeal was unsuccessful. See Maxwell v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., 72 Mass.App.Ct. 685, 893 N.E.2d 791 (2008). On remand, the parties conducted discovery and AIGDC filed a motion for summary judgment in August, 2009. Summary judgment was denied. AIGDC appealed under the doctrine of present execution, and we granted its application for direct appellate review.

"We conclude that AIGDC enjoys qualified immunity regarding its reporting of potentially fraudulent activity but that summary judgment is inappropriate because all of Maxwell's claims rely, at least in part, on conduct falling outside the scope of the immunity. We also conclude that portions of Maxwell's claims may be barred by workers' compensation exclusivity under G.L. c. 152, but that not one of Maxwell's counts is barred entirely such that the Superior Court would be without subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Superior Court denying summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Maxwell v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., Mass. , --- N.E.2d ----, 2011 WL 2556944 (Mass 2011) Decided June 30, 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.

Copyright

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Do I Need To File A Tax Return On My Workers Compensation?

Saturday, October 20, 2012

NJ Workers Compensation Ranked Nation's 7th Highest Premium Rate

Friday, July 27, 2012

International Business Expands Profits of Liberty Mutual

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

OSHA cites Wal-Mart Super Center for repeat and serious safety hazards - proposes $52,600 in fines

Monday, June 11, 2012

OSHA fines Clifton, NJ, stucco contractor more than $108,000 for exposing workers to fall hazards

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

AIG settles workers compensation insurance complaint with all 50 states, DC for $146.5M

Friday, May 11, 2012

Law to Ban Medical Expense Claims Proposed

Monday, April 23, 2012

NJ Supreme Court To Rule on Several Critical Issues

Saturday, April 21, 2012

The New Non-Subscriber Opt-Out Plan Is Emerging As The Alternative to Traditional Workers' Compensation

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Maine Passes Laws Restricting Workers Compensation Benefits

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Washington Workers' Advisor Blog Launched

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Federal RICO Claim Not Preempted by a State Workers Compensation Act

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

AIG Exits Workers Compensation As Comp Medical Issues Grow

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Asbestos Disease Claims Continue to Surge

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Injured Worker Sues Insurance Company for Malicious Prosecution

Get new posts by email: