Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query medical benefits. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query medical benefits. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

US Department of Labor notifies former New Jersey nuclear weapons employees of energy workers’ compensation program


The U.S. Department of Labor is notifying former workers of 26 New Jersey facilities about benefits that may be available to them under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act administered by the department's Office of Workers' Compensation's Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation. Survivors of qualified workers also may be entitled to benefits.

Former employees of the following sites may be eligible for EEOICPA compensation and medical benefits if they worked at the facility during a period of covered employment: International Nickel Co. Bayonne Laboratories in Bayonne, Westinghouse Electric Corp. and Bloomfield Tool Co. in Bloomfield, U.S. Pipe and Foundry in Burlington, Aluminum Company of America in Garwood, National Beryllia in Haskell, Kellex/Pierpont in Jersey City, Chemical Construction Co. and Standard Oil Development Co. of New Jersey in Linden, Middlesex Municipal Landfill, Middlesex Sampling Plant and United Lead Co. in Middlesex, Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Brunswick Laboratory in New Brunswick, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in Princeton, Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, Maywood Chemical Works in Maywood, American Peddinghaus Corp. in Moonachle, Baker and Williams Co. and Wykoff Steel Co. in Newark, Bowen Laboratory in North Branch, J.T. Baker Chemical Co. in Phillipsburg, Callite Tungsten Co. in Union City, Tube Reducing Co. in Wallington, Rare Earths/W. R. Grace in Wayne and Vitro Corp. of American in West Orange.

The department urges all potential eligible former workers and their survivors to contact its New York Resource Center at 800-941-3943 or visit DEEOIC's website at http://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy for more information.

On July 31, 2001, the Department of Labor began administering Part B of the EEOICPA. Part B covers current and former workers diagnosed with cancer, beryllium disease or silicosis caused by exposure to radiation, beryllium or silica while working directly for the U.S. Department of Energy, that department's contractors or subcontractors, a designated Atomic Weapons Employer or a beryllium vendor. Individuals or their survivors found eligible under Part B may receive a lump sum compensation payment of $150,000 and medical expenses for their covered conditions. Part E, created by an amendment to the EEOICPA on Oct. 28, 2004, and administered by the Labor Department, provides federal compensation and medical benefits to DOE contractors and subcontractors who worked at covered facilities during a covered time period and sustained an illness as a result of exposure to toxic substances.

In support of the Labor Department's implementation of the EEOICPA, DOE maintains a list of covered facilities under the EEOICPA, which is periodically updated and published in the Federal Register. DOE also maintains a searchable covered facility database, which contains additional information pertaining to each of the facilities, including years of covered activity and an overview of the type of work performed. The database can be accessed online athttp://www.hss.doe.gov/healthsafety/fwsp/advocacy/faclist/findfacility.cfm.

It is the Department of Labor's goal to disseminate information concerning EEOICPA benefits to potentially eligible claimants across the country. To aid in this effort, the department maintains 11 resource centers nationwide to provide in-person and telephone-based assistance to individuals regardless of where they live. To date, the department has delivered more than $10 million in EEOICPA compensation and medical benefits to 114 eligible claimants living in New Jersey and more than $7.7 billion nationwide.

More articles about the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation  Act

Jan 13, 2012
... 17 facilities associated with the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act about compensation and medical benefits potentially available to them under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program ...
Feb 28, 2012
The recently amended Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act is explained in detail and forms are furnished and discussed.The recent Supreme Court decisions concerning the high judicial threshold for ...
Feb 12, 2011
The recently amended Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act is explained in detail and forms are furnished and discussed. The new administration and management of claims arising from insolvent ...
Jul 02, 2009
... of employees for the Standard Oil Development Company in Linden, New Jersey, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.

Sunday, February 7, 2021

Investigative Report Raises Issues

The tension between public pension systems and workers' compensation programs was highlighted in a recent investigative report by the NJ State Comptroller. The report raises additional critical issues common to other state and national collateral social insurance programs challenged by current fiscal limitations.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

NJ Commissioner of Labor Adopts Rules for Emergent Medical Motions in Workers Compensation Matters

David J. Socolow, Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development, on September 3, 2009, formally adopted the pending Rules for Emergent Medical Motions. The new Rules became effective on Monday, October 5, 2009 and a notice published in the NJ Register on that date, 41 NJ Register 3807(a).

A public hearing concerning the pending Rules was held on June 2, 2009 and there were no attendees. A written comment was submitted by Kenneth A. Stoller, Senior Counsel, American Insurance Association, Washington, DC. One comment concerned the assessment of fines against an insurance carrier for activities of the employer. The Department declined to modify the pending Rules, but stated, “…the insurance carrier would not be fined or penalized where it is in no way culpable for the violation.”

A typographical correction was recognized. “Upon review, the Department has noticed a typographical error, which it would like to correct through a change on adoption. Specifically, the reference within proposed N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.3(r) to, "the decision and order rendered under (o) above," should read, "the decision and order rendered under (q) above..." Consequently, the Department is substituting "(q)" for "(o)" within N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.3(r).

The Honorable Peter J. Calderone, Director and Chief Judge of the Division, will discuss the new Rules in an upcoming academic seminar sponsored by the NJ Institute for Continuing Legal Education on Wednesday, October 7, 2009.

………

The Rules:

12:235-3.2 General motions for temporary disability and/or medical benefits

(a)-(i) (No change.)

12:235-3.3 Motions for emergent medical care pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-15.3

(a) With or after the filing of a claim petition, a petitioner may file a motion for emergent medical care directly with the district office to which the petition is or will be assigned (See N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.1 for claim petition filing and assignment).

(b) The notice of motion for emergent medical care shall be on a form prescribed by the Division and shall contain or be accompanied by the following:

1. A statement by the petitioner or the petitioner's attorney of the specific request(s) for medical treatment made by the petitioner or the petitioner's attorney to the employer and/or the employer's insurance carrier, including the name of the person(s) to whom the request(s) was/were made;

2. Medical documentation, including a statement by a physician indicating that the petitioner is in need of emergent medical care, that the delay in treatment will result in irreparable harm or damage to the petitioner and the specific nature of the irreparable harm or damage;

3. All medical records relating to the requested medical care, which are in the possession of the petitioner or the petitioner's attorney;

4. Copies of the claim petition and answer.

i. If no answer to the claim petition has been filed, the notice of motion shall include the following information if known by the petitioner: the telephone number and the fax number of the employer, the name of the employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier and the insurance carrier or self-insured employer contact person's telephone number and fax number, as required to be maintained under N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.4; and

5. Proof of service under (c), (d) and (e) below.

(c) Where an answer to the claim petition has been filed by the respondent, the notice of motion and supporting papers shall be served on respondent's attorney by fax and by a one-day delivery service.

(d) Where no answer to the claim petition has been filed by the respondent, the notice of motion and supporting papers shall be served on the employer and, if known by the petitioner, upon the employer's insurance carrier.

1. Service on the employer under this subsection shall be either by personal service or by fax and a one-day delivery service.

2. Service on the insurance carrier under this subsection shall be by fax and a one-day delivery service to the contact person listed pursuant to N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.4.

(e) Where the employer is uninsured or where the employer's insurer is not known by the petitioner, the notice of motion and supporting papers shall, in addition to the requirements under (c) or (d) above, be served on the Uninsured Employer's Fund by fax and by a one-day delivery service.

(f) The date of the personal service, the date of the fax service or the date of receipt of the one-day delivery service, whichever is latest, shall be considered the date of service under (c), (d) and (e) above.

(g) No later than five calendar days after receiving service of the petitioner's notice of motion for emergent medical care, the respondent shall file with the district office an answer to the motion.

(h) Within 15 calendar days after the petitioner has served the notice of motion for emergent medical care upon the appropriate party or parties under (c), (d) and (e) above, the employer or the employer's insurance carrier may have a medical examination of petitioner conducted.

(i) The petitioner is required to attend and cooperate with the medical examination process under (h) above.

(j) Motions for emergent medical care shall take precedence over all other court listings.

(k) The judge should use telephone conferences and afternoon hearings, as appropriate, to expedite the disposition of motions for emergent medical care and to avoid as much as possible the disruption of other court proceedings.

(l) Within five calendar days of the filing of an answer by respondent or, if no answer has been filed, within five calendar days from the date an answer should have been filed, an initial conference on the motion for emergent medical care shall take place.

(m) The district office shall provide notice of the initial conference to the following parties under the following circumstances:

1. Where an answer to the notice of motion for emergent medical care has been filed, the district office shall provide notice of the initial conference by telephone and fax to the petitioner's attorney or petitioner pro se and to the answering party using the telephone numbers and fax numbers indicated in the notice of motion for emergent medical care and the answer, respectively;

2. Where an answer to the notice of motion for emergent medical care has not been filed and where the employer is insured, the district office shall provide notice of the initial conference by telephone and fax to the employer and to the insurance carrier contact person listed in the notice of motion for emergent medical care; or

3. Where an answer to the notice of motion for emergent medical care has not been filed and where the employer is not insured or the insurer is not known, the district office shall provide notice of the initial conference by telephone and fax to the employer and to the Uninsured Employer's Fund.

(n) If the motion for emergent medical care has not been resolved at the initial conference and the employer or the employer's insurance carrier has not requested a medical examination of the petitioner under (h) above, the judge shall hold a hearing on the merits of the motion for emergent medical care as soon as is practicable, but no later than five calendar days from the date of the initial conference.

(o) If the motion for emergent medical care has not been resolved at the initial conference and the employer or employer's insurance carrier has requested a medical examination of the petitioner under (h) above, the judge shall hold a hearing on the merits of the motion for emergent medical care as soon as is practicable after the medical examination of the petitioner, but no later than five calendar days from the date of the medical examination of the petitioner.

(p) With regard to the hearing on the merits of the motion for emergent medical care, the judge may require a continuous trial or may use other procedures to ensure that the motion is expeditiously heard.

(q) The judge hearing the motion for emergent medical care shall render a decision and issue an order on the motion within one business day of the conclusion of the trial testimony.

(r) The judge may supplement the decision and order rendered under(q)above at a later date.

(s) If a motion for emergent medical care does not meet the requirements under this section, but does meet the requirements for a general motion for temporary and/or medical benefits under N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.3, the motion shall be listed and proceed as a general motion for temporary and/or medical benefits.

12:235-3.4 Insurance carrier or self-insured employer contact person procedures pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-15.4

(a) Every insurance carrier providing workers' compensation insurance and every workers' compensation self-insured employer shall designate a contact person who is responsible for responding to issues concerning medical and temporary disability benefits where no claim petition has been filed or where a claim petition has not been answered.

(b) The contact person referred to in (a) above shall also receive notice of motions for emergent medical care under N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.3.

(c) The full name, telephone number, mailing address, e-mail address and fax number of the contact person referred to in (a) above shall be submitted to the Division utilizing the Division's contact person form in the manner instructed on the form.

(d) The Division's contact person form shall be made available on the Division's website and at the Division's district offices.

(e) Any changes of contact person or in information about the contact person shall be immediately submitted to the Division using the Division's contact person form.

(f) After an answer to a claim petition has been filed, the attorney of record for the respondent shall be the point of contact for issues concerning temporary disability and/or medical benefits.

(g) A contact person roster using the information provided under (c) above will be available on the Division's website.

(h) Failure to comply with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 34:15-15.4 or this section shall result in a fine of $2,500 for each day of noncompliance, which fine shall be payable to the Second Injury Fund.

1. The Division shall send notice of noncompliance and of the fine amount by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the business address of the insurance carrier or self-insured employer.

2. The insurance carrier or self-insured employer shall have 30 calendar days to pay the fine or to contest the fine.

3. Where the insurance carrier or self-insured employer contests the fine, the Division shall hold a conference in an attempt to resolve the dispute.

Recodify existing N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.3 through 3.13 as 3.5 through 3.15 (No change in text.)

12:235-3.16 Enforcement

(a) A party may, by written motion pursuant to N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.5(a) and (b), move against an employer, insurance carrier, petitioner, case attorney or any other party to a claim petition for enforcement of any court order or for the enforcement of the requirements of the workers' compensation statute or rules.

(b) The motion under (a) above shall identify the order, statute or regulation sought to be enforced.

(c) The party against whom the motion has been brought shall file a written response to the motion within 14 calendar days of the notice of motion.

(d) The response under (c) above shall include the reasons for any noncompliance and the manner and time period to ensure compliance.

(e) Any time after the 14-day period to respond under (c) above has elapsed and on notice to the parties, the judge shall hold a hearing on the motion.

(f) A judge on his or her own motion may at any time, upon notice to the affected parties, move to enforce a court order or to enforce the requirements of the workers' compensation statute or rules.

(g) Prior to ruling on a motion under (f) above, the judge shall provide the parties an opportunity to respond to the motion and to be heard on the record.

(h) Upon a finding by a judge of noncompliance with a court order or the workers' compensation statute or rules, the judge, in addition to any other remedy provided by law, may take any or all of the following actions:

1. Impose costs and simple interest on any monies due.

i. The judge may impose an additional assessment not to exceed 25 percent on any moneys due if the judge finds the payment delay to be unreasonable;

2. Levy fines or other penalties on parties or case attorneys in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for unreasonable delay or continued noncompliance.

i. A fine shall be imposed by the judge as a form of pecuniary punishment.

ii. A penalty shall be imposed by the judge to reimburse the Division's administrative costs.

iii. The proceeds under this paragraph shall be paid into the Second Injury Fund;

3. Close proofs, dismiss a claim or suppress a defense as to any party;

4. Exclude evidence or witnesses;

5. Take other appropriate case-related action to ensure compliance; and/or

6. Allow a reasonable counsel fee to a prevailing party, where supported by an affidavit of services.

(i) Upon a finding by a judge of noncompliance by a party with a court order or the workers' compensation law or rules, the judge, in addition to any other remedy provided by law, may hold a separate hearing on the issue of contempt.

(j) Following a hearing under (i) above and upon a finding by the judge of contempt, the successful party in the contempt hearing or the judge may file a motion with the Superior Court for contempt action.

(k) Any fine, penalty, assessment or cost imposed by a judge under this section shall be paid by the entity or party found to be in noncompliance and shall not be included in the expense base of an insurance carrier for the purpose of determining rates or as a reimbursement or case expense.

Recodify existing N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.15 and 3.16 as 3.17 and 3.18 (No change in text.)

SUBCHAPTER 7. UNINSURED EMPLOYER'S FUND

12:235-7.1 Purpose; scope

(a)-(d) (No change.)

(e) A petitioner may move to relax or dispense with requirements under this subchapter.

1. After a hearing on the motion to relax or dispense with requirements under this subchapter, the judge may grant the motion upon a finding that the subject requirements under the particular facts of the case are unduly burdensome and that grant of the motion would not adversely affect the UEF.

(f) Where petitioner seeks current medical treatment and/or temporary disability benefits and the only issue is the cancellation or non-renewal of an insurance policy, the judge may order the insurance carrier to provide treatment and/or benefits without prejudice and subject to reimbursement by the employer or, if not paid by the employer, by the UEF, if it is subsequently determined that the policy was not in effect.

(g) (No change in text.)

12:235-7.4 Medical bills; physician's examination

(a) Any medical bills or charges for which petitioner seeks payment from the UEF must be timely submitted by the petitioner to the UEF and be supported by the following:

1. Related treating records, itemized bills and a physician's report, which reflects that the bills and charges were reasonable, necessary and causally related to the work accident or occupational exposure alleged in the claim petition; and

2. Other necessary medical documentation or information required by the UEF.

(b) Any dispute under this section concerning the treating records, bills, physician's report or UEF request for other medical documentation or information shall be determined by the judge after a hearing upon oral or written motion by the UEF or another party.

Recodify existing (b)-(e) as (c)-(f) (No change in text.)

For more information concerning medical care and workers’ compensation click here.

Friday, July 27, 2012

Duration of Temporary Disability Payments Increasing

NCCI Holdings Inc. reports the duration of the average payment of workers' compensation temporary disability benefits is increasing.


When a worker is temporarily disabled as a result of a work-related injury so that he or she is unable to perform his job, the worker is entitled to temporary compensation benefits. If an employee is not absent from work, temporary compensation benefits are not payable.  An employee may be entitled to multiple periods of temporary disability benefits as a result of a particular injury. When there is a dispute with regard to the payment of temporary disability benefits and the respondent-employer has contested their payment either from the date of the accident or following the termination of medical care, the employee may look to the State or to a private temporary disability carrier for payment.

New Jersey standards for temporary disability benefits:
Temporary Disability
  • When out of work and under authorized medical care for more than 7 days (retroactive), you are entitled to receive temporary disability benefits not to exceed 70% of the State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW).
  • Authorization to return to “light duty” is interpreted by the Courts as a return to full time employment and temporary disability benefits will stop. If you remain under medical care and if your employer does not have “light duty” work available you may be entitled to continued temporary disability benefits.

....
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered work related accident and injuries.



Related Articles on Temporary Disability Benefits

Jan 29, 2012
Universally workers' compensation temporary disability benefits are set calculating wages at the time of the accident. If an employer miscalculates an employee's wages then the payment of temporary disability benefits paid...
Jul 19, 2012
This amount, not the $400 basic wage, should be used to compute for his benefits, thus yielding an additional $50 per week in Temporary Total Disability benefits. Additional items of value are also included as part of the...
Feb 06, 2012
A NJ Appellate Court upheld that a trial judge's ruling that a decision of the Social Security Administration awarding total disability beenfits did not terminate a workers' compensation order for temporary disability payments.
Apr 10, 2012
Temporary disability plans and major medical plans act as coverage for loss time and treatment. Employee are willing to fore go permanent disability inorder to get certain and immediate medical care and lost time benefits.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

State Acts to Restrict Medical Care

The State of NJ has proposed sweeping regulations to limit the payment of medical care under automobile insurance policies, and this action is seen as yet another signal that workers' compensation medical delivery may become even further restricted. In an effort to reduce insurance premiums, the NJ Department of Banking and Insurance, has proposed massive changes in the manner and method that doctors may bill for medical treatment and diagnostic procedures and has restructured the process for appealing a denied claim.

The State claims that medical delivery costs are soaring. It has been reported that for every premium dollar that insurance companies receive, they end up spending $1.23 on medical benefits. The regulations are designed to reduce medical services and produce a profitable insurance product.

Furthermore, the purpose of the regulations are to limit legal costs. The sate reported that in one instance a contested medical  resulted in the payment of $375 in medical benefits, but the legal costs awarded for that recovery were $3,380.

The regulations prohibit the use of innovative radiological diagnostic testing. "X-ray digitization or computer aided radiographic mensuration reported under CPT 76499 or any other code are not reimburseable under PIP."

The comment period for the new rules runs thorough early September 2011. The impact of the regulations is to reduce medical care and diagnostic procedures that will impact resulting workers' compensation benefits. Ironically providing the best medical benefits available would seemingly comply with the intent of the compensation act and ultimately economically benefit the employer by producing a healthy workforce, The process of cost cutting will only ultimately degrade the medical delivery component of workers' compensation even further.

Related articles

Monday, July 15, 2013

Administration Urges Rate Changes for US FELA Benefits

Gary Steinberg, Acting Director Office of Workers' Compensation Programs,  U.S. Department of Labor Acting testified before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives,  on July 10, 2013

"Thank you for inviting me to this important hearing today. As you know, the Department of Labor's
Gary Steinberg, 
Acting Director Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs, 
U.S. Department of Labor,
(DOL) Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) administers a number of workers' compensation programs, including the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) program, which covers 2.7 million Federal and Postal workers and is one of the largest self-insured workers' compensation systems in the world.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss legislative reforms to FECA that would enhance our ability to assist FECA beneficiaries to return to work, provide a more equitable array of FECA benefits, and generally modernize the program and update the statute. Almost 97 years ago, on September 7, 1916, Congress enacted FECA to provide comprehensive Federal workers' compensation coverage to all Federal employees and their survivors for disability or death due to an employment injury or illness.

Friday, May 2, 2008

Diagnosing and Curing the Ailing NJ Workers' Compensation System

On the eve the NJ Senate's investigation into New Jersey's workers' compensation system, the question lingers on how to evaluate its health. New Jersey has always had a very large and very dedicated workforce A recent newspaper series by Star-Ledger reporters Dunstan McNichol and John P. Martin revealed that the system is serious flawed and that it is in need of a “complete overhaul.”

The State has a history of being a heavily industrialized state with a huge legacy of pollution from asbestos to petrochemical. Dr. Irving J. Selikoff, of Paterson, NJ, began his landmark studies on asbestos workers in New Jersey. In 1911, almost a century ago, NJ adopted an administrative system known as workers' compensation and it was the intent of the Legislature to provide a speedy and cost effective system of delivering statutorily defined benefits to injured workers while passing the costs onto the consumers of products and services.

This will be the first major evaluation of the workers’ compensation system in 30 years. The last one resulted in a fraud report from the NJ State Commission of Investigation and subsequent statutory change.

Much has changed from the past. In 1911 modern medicine was unknown and so were the diseases that it now treats. The program’s benefits were meager and the conditions eligible for compensation were few and far between. More Americans have died from occupational disease in the United States of America in the past 40 years than in all wars dating back to 1776. Hearings on S.79 before the Subcomm. of Labor and Human Resources of the Senate Comm. on Labor and Human Resources, 100th Cong. 1st Session, S.Hrg. 100-56, pt. 1, at page 1 (1987). Collateral benefit programs did not exist: major medical insurance, long term disability, social security and pension programs.

We are experiencing a struggling economy today. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich stated, “Fifty years ago, when over a third of the American workforce was unionized and most big industries were oligopolies, it was fairly easy for unionized workers to get higher wages and benefits without putting any individual company at a competitive disadvantage. The higher wages and benefits were merely passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices or came out of profits that would otherwise go to investors. Today, though, most companies are in fierce competition because new technologies combined with globalization have destroyed the old oligopolies and allowed many new entrants.”

Today the workers’ compensation process is confronted with the complexity of the causal relationship of new diseases to synergistic occupational exposures to complex substances as well as traumatic events. Multiple bureaucratic benefits programs that are not formally connected burden the system with claims and liens. Revenue is limited by fewer manufacturing facilities and it is more costly to provide medical treatment and pharmaceutical protocols that result in miraculous recoveries as well as serious and fatal unfortunate results. Benefits must be paid out longer since the average person has a greater life expectancy, ie 1911 – 50 yrs of age and 2007 – 78 years of age.

As in medicine, one must look at both subjective complaints and objective findings to guide its evaluation of the workers’ compensation system. One can hear the cry’s of injured workersWaiting in Pain,” and of the injured workers and the families of those who did not survive the compensation system. Stories of frustration and outrage are reported in the press. Testimony to the NJ Senate will come from the stakeholders who have economic interests in the system and those who are organized representatives of those who are unable to speak any longer. Those voices must be heard and evaluated. It is important to heed to words and wisdom of all and evaluate them in the context of self-motivation.

The compensation system has been portrayed as, “a dead elephant in the room,” and one that fails to carry out the legislative intent of 1911. Professor Emeritus, John F. Burton, Jr., of Rutgers University of the School of Management and Labor Relations, describes the NJ system as, "It's kind of a sleepy system…” that is “…not particularly worker-friendly."

Unlike The Constitution, the workers' compensation act deals not in the theoretical and vague general concepts of Democracy. The compensation act is a document, which within its four comers, speaks with certainty, specifics and details.

The program has failed because under the present system the Legislative intent cannot be carried out. One cannot drive a 1911 model car on the NJ Turnpike today. Workers' Compensation should be viewed in that context, and not as a cash cow for any interest parties.

The Act can no longer provide medical treatment in an efficient and effective manner consistent with the legislative intent to provide social remedial benefits through a liberal and summary social insurance program. Medical coverage has become acute in NJ and in other jurisdictions. Almost a majority of workers will soon be uninsured for major medical coverage. NJ should take the initiative, as other states have, to provide for universal health care. NJ should combine workers' compensation medical coverage with a universal employer based medical care program and have a single payer system. A single payer system will be cost effective, efficient and provide more appropriate delivery of medical care.

The workers' compensation system began in 1911 with the noble mission as a social remedial system providing an efficient and certain system of benefits to injured workers. Today, the system struggles to protect employees as the rapidly evolving landscape is demanding increased attention to reconsideration of an IHC system in light of the consequences of the program's costs and the consequences of being uninsured for healthcare benefits. The participants in the current program, including employees and employers , will require a more balanced and certain medical delivery system. The lack of healthcare coverage takes an enormous toll on the uninsured, which results in avoidable deaths each year, poorly managed chronic conditions, undetected or under treated cancer and untried life-saving medical procedures. An Integrated Health Care plan is a potential national shift to reduce costs so that a healthcare safety net can be maintained for workers and their families.

“Full-time healthcare would save money. Instead of paying for two insurance plans – one to cover healthcare for injuries and illnesses on the job and another for injuries and illness off the job – businesses would buy one plan. As Roger Thompson, former director of Travelers Insurance Workers’ Compensation Strategic Business Unit put it, the present system is ‘like having two trains going down separate tracks and it doesn’t make a lot of sense to have all the administrative costs to maintain these separate systems.’” R. McGarrah, “Full-time Healthcare for America’s Working Families [Draft],” AFL-CIO (August 22, 2003).

In the short run, adopting such concepts, proposed by Senator Stephen M. Sweeney and Assemblyman Neil M. Cohen, would be fine initial steps:

By evaluating the health of the compensation system thorough an intensive analysis of both the objective findings and subjective complaints, the NJ Senate will have the opportunity to enact modern, creative and innovative solutions that will be able meet the present needs of the workers, the employers and taxpayers of State. The NJ Legislature has the opportunity to craft an up-to-date system that will cure the ailing and antiquated workers’ compensation system and embrace today’s needs and tomorrow’s future and bring the State into a new century.

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

It is Time To Do The Right Thing



A recent decision by the NJ Courts illustrates the weaknesses of the present workers' compensation system when dealing with occupational exposures. The social remedial system called workers' compensation was designed before recognition of the compensability occupational illnesses. 


The initial system was to furnish benefits without fault and in a summary and remedial fashion to injured workers. For the most part, that system worked from 1911 until the 1950's when the legacy of asbestos, used in World War II to insulate ships, came back to haunt the American worker by the manifestation of latent asbestos diseases including mesothelioma, a rare and fatal cancer.


Recently a NJ court denied the compensability of an asbestos related condition based upon the claimant's own knowledge of the causal relationship of an asbestos related medical condition and his own occupational exposure. Additional the court held that medical expert testimony was not required to support a motion to dismiss for the failure to meet the requirement of the statute of limitations.


In the 1970's the US Department of Labor was concerned with the same weaknesses and unavailability of benefits. The US DOL commissioned the Environmental Sciences Center at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine under the leadership of the late Irving J. Selikoff, MD to study and analyze the problem. The weaknesses of the system, even though less dramatic than present, led to the conclusion that the workers' compensation systems just didn't work for occupational disease conditions. Additionally, costs for medical treatment of asbestos related conditions were being shifted at an estimated $10 Billion dollars, at that time, to the Medicare system.


Dr. Selikoff studied two major cohorts in analyzing the inadequacies of the  workers' compensation system. One group were insulators, and another group were 933 former plant workers at The Union Asbestos and Rubber Company of Paterson NJ who worked in war production between 1942 and 1944. Strikingly, the dormant medical conditions caused by the occupational exposure to asbestos fiber, and the latent condition of the disease for decades, caused major problems in filing claims. Those included the statute of limitation and diagnosis by medical professionals. Some professional were Grade B readers certified by The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and even those experts in the field were challenged in Court. 


The report, that was submitted to the US Congress, concluded that the failure of the workers' compensation system to provide benefits to many who were exposed to asbestos, and the inadequate benefits to others. Their low rates were based on extremely low wages at the time of exposure. For these and other reasons, the report concluded, that the workers' compensation had failed to adequately provide treatment and other benefits. Since workers' compensation was not meeting the needs, claimants flocked to the tort system in epidemic proportion resulting in "the longest running tort" in American judicial history, "asbestos litigation." That litigation continues to this day. Even scores of companies that have reorganized under bankruptcy to avoid liability exposure are now providing benefits under a claims procedure.


While the NJ Court's decision may have been on point with regard to the Rules adopted to govern workers' compensation cases, it is time to revisit whether the Rules are too strict and defeat the social and remedial goals of the system that was envisioned by the creators in 1911. On a global scale, the failure of the workers' compensation to provide benefits results in the inequitable shift of responsibility to the general taxpayer. 


To meet the needs of those exposed occupationally, Congress needs to act now upon a global and unified solution. One path to the goal of correcting inequities of the system is to advance a system of universal medical care.  The US government must do the right thing. The medical delivery system for occupational diseases must come under a national universal medical care program. Additionally Congress must meet its moral and social responsibility and finally ban asbestos use in the US once and for all.


Read the decision: Russo v. Hoboken Board of Education, A-1861-10T4 (App. Div. November 29, 2011)

"...the WCJ found that he knew asbestos could cause lung disease and other medical problems as early as "the 70s." She noted that Russo "made complaints about the exposures to harmful substances . . . while still teaching." The WCJ further found that Russo "was well aware of the potential harmful effects of asbestos exposure," and she rejected his claim that the petition was not time-barred "because he was never informed by any of his treating physicians that his cancer was related to this exposure."

...
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.