Copyright

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

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health & Compensation Act of 2010

It Is A Guest Blog Featuring Troy G. Rosaco.......

On January 2, 2011, President Obama signed the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act (“Zadroga Act”) providing a total of $4.3 billion in health benefits and financial compensation for victims, responders, and other harmed by the attacks of September 11th and its aftermath.

The Zadroga Act accomplishes two goals important for individuals who suffered injuries or illnesses related to either the actual attacks or the subsequent cleanup.. First, Title I of the Zadroga 9/11Act establishes a comprehensive health plan to monitor and treat injuries suffered by first responders and survivors—including firefighters, police officers, EMT’s, rescue workers, construction workers, cleanup workers, local residents, local area workers, and school children—as the result of the exposure to toxic dust and debris around Ground Zero and other specified areas. Second, Title II of the Zadroga 9/11 Act reopens and expands a number of elements of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001.

Title I - Health Benefits 


There are a number of health programs funded under the Zadroga Act. The new law establishes a new WTC responders medical monitoring and treatment program to provide medical evaluation, monitoring, and treatment benefits (including prescription drug benefits) to emergency responders and clean-up workers who were impacted by the WTC attack on September 11th. The benefits are delivered through medical “Centers of Excellence”.

The Zadroga Act also establishes a medical monitoring and treatment program to pay for medical monitoring for WTC responders who performed rescue, recovery, demolition, debris clean-up, and related services. If the responder meets the eligibility criteria and is accepted into the program, the responder is entitled to receive treatment if two conditions are met: (1) the condition is among those identified WTC-related listed conditions including a number of “aerodigestive” disorders, listed mental health conditions, and musculoskeletal disorders occurring during the rescue or recovery efforts, and (2) a physician at a Clinical Center of Excellence determines that a condition was caused or contributed to by exposure to airborne toxins, other hazards, or adverse conditions resulting from the September 11th attacks.

The Zadroga Act also establishes a “survivor program” for non-responders who lived, worked, went to school or were otherwise in a defined area of lower Manhattan (and parts of Brooklyn) for a certain time period after the September 11th attacks. The criteria and medical eligibility determinations for survivors are the same as those that apply to the responders program. The survivor program is the “secondary payor” to any applicable public or private health insurance for the conditions that are not work-related.

Title II - The Re-Opened Victim Compensation Fund of 2001

The Zadroga Act also reopens and significantly expands a number of aspects of the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund of 2001. The Zadroga Act amends the original September 11th Compensation Fund by extending the time in which a claim may be filed for a period of five years from the date that Special Master (who has not yet been appointed) updates the regulations under the Zadroga 9/11 Act. The Victims’ Compensation Fund was originally closed on December 22, 2003.

The Zadroga Act also expands the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) in several important respects. The original VCF provided a right to file a claim only to those individuals injured while “present at the site” of the disasters or in the “immediate aftermath” of the September 11th attacks. “Present at the site” was originally defined by the VCF as physically present at the time of the crashes in the buildings, portions of the buildings that were destroyed as a result of the airplane crashes or any contiguous area that was sufficiently close to the crash site that there was a demonstrable risk of physical harm from the impact of aircraft or any subsequent fire, explosions, or collapse of buildings. As a result, rescue and clean-up workers injured at the buildings or areas not adjacent to the site were not originally eligible to file a claim as they were not “present at the site”.

The original VCF regulations defined the “immediate aftermath” of the crashes for claimants, other than rescue workers, as from the time of the crashes for a period of 12 hours after the crashes. For rescue workers the period of time defined as the “immediate aftermath” was extended to include the period from the crashes until 96 hours after the crashes. Again, rescue and recovery workers who arrived more than 96 hours after the crash and were injured were excluded from filing a claim under the original VCF.

The Zadroga Act expands the definition of “immediate aftermath” to well beyond the 12 and 96 hour post-crash periods defined in the original law. “Immediate aftermath” is redefined by the Zadroga Act to mean “any period beginning with the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, and ending on May 30, 2002.” The expansion of what was considered the “immediate aftermath” of the terrorist attacks significantly broadens the pool of claimants in the VCF to include the rescue, construction, an other clean-up workers who suffered injures during the ongoing rescue and clean-up efforts that persisted for many months after the September 11th attacks.

The Zadroga Act also expands definition of the “crash site.” The term “9/11 crash site” is defined by the Zadroga Act to mean: ‘‘(A) the World Trade Center site, Pentagon site, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania site; (B) the buildings or portions of buildings that were destroyed as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001; (C) any “area contiguous to a site of such crashes that the Special Master determines was sufficiently close to the site that there was a demonstrable risk of physical harm “ resulting from the impact of the aircraft or any subsequent fire, explosions, or building collapses (including the immediate area in which the impact occurred, fire occurred, portions of buildings fell, or debris fell upon and injured individuals); and (D) any area related to, or along, “routes of debris removal”, such as barges and the Fresh Kills landfill. on Staten Island.

One major issue that is unclear at the time of this writing is whether the residents, workers, and others in lower Manhattan who were sickened by the toxic fallout from the 9/11 attacks are eligible claimants under the VCF. The broadened language of the Zadroga Act amendments would suggest that the area residents and nearby workers are eligible claimants under the reopened VCF.

Within two weeks of the signing of the of Zadroga Act, however, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s staff announced that lower Manhattan residents and workers were not covered by the Fund, only to be contradicted by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (a co-author of the Zadroga Act) the next day, declaring that such area residents/workers were in fact covered. Resolution of this issue will need to be decided by the Special Master and the new rules implemented under the Zadroga Act. As of February 11, 2011, no Special Master has been appointed,

The Zadroga Act places sharp limitations on attorneys’ fees. The Zadroga Act amended the original Victim Compensation Fund law to place a “cap on attorneys’ fees of no more than ten percent” of an award made on a claim. The ten percent attorneys’ fee cap is further limited by fees previously received by attorneys representing VCF claimants who were also part of any settled civil action, including the recently settled litigation in the Southern District of NewYork. The Zadroga Act also prohibits an attorney from charging a legal fee in the case of an individual who was charged a legal fee in connection with the settlement of a prior civil action, except if the legal fee charged in connection with the settlement of a civil action is less than 10 percent of the aggregate amount awarded by a subsequent Victim Compensation Fund.

Bottom Line - attorneys who represented the over 10,000 9/11 responders in the recently settled actions against New York City cannot “double dip”. If their fees in the NYC litigation were higher than the 10% attorney fee cap in the Zadroga Act, they cannot charge any fee for the Zadroga VCF claim. New attorneys who represent the claimant solely in the Zadroga VCF claim are also limited by the 10% aggregate cap, which may dissuade some attorneys from taking claims where claimants previously paid attorneys a 25% fee under the NYC settlements. In some cases, the result might be that the attorney fee on the Zadroga Victim Compensation Fund claim could be significantly less that 10%, and could be offset completely.

Conclusion

The passage and enactment of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 was a huge victory for 9/11 first responders and survivors. Most importantly, it provides much needed medical monitoring and treatment to thousands of individuals who are now sick as a result of the 9/11 attacks and its aftermath. We are all aware now of the “toxic soup” that enveloped the area surrounding Ground Zero.

The Zadroga 9/11 Act also provides a second chance for many individuals, who were either ineligible or became sick after the closure of the original Victim Compensation Fund, to apply for a monetary award for their damages. As of February 11, 2011, President Obama has not selected the new Special Master of the Fund.

The original Special Master of the VCF was Kenneth Feinberg, who is now administering claims related to the BP Gulf oil spill. Mr. Feinberg has offered to act as Special Master in the reopened VCF on a pro bono basis. The Special Master must issue new regulations on Fund procedures within 180 days of enactment of the Zadroga 9/11 Act. Once these regulations are issued, attorneys will be in a much better position to counsel our clients on their rights and potential benefits under the new Zadroga Act.
......
Troy G. Rosasco is a Senior Partner at Turley, Redmond, Rosasco & Rosasco, LLP with offices in Nassau, Suffolk and Queens. He has been representing 9/11 victims and first responders since soon after the September 11th attacks. He authors the nationally recognized New York Disability Law Blog.

Daniel J. Hansen is a personal injury trial attorney with his own practice and offices in the Woolworth Building in Manhattan. They are jointly handling 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund claims.


Related articles

Sunday, August 25, 2013

OK's True Cost Control Feature

Counsel fees are a critical element to workers' compensation claims. David DePaolo's recent blog post highlights how counsel fees motivate some claim strategies in Oklahoma where a 30% fee prevails. Today's post was shared by WorkCompCentral and comes from daviddepaolo.blogspot.com


Most of the attention Oklahoma's reform is getting in the work comp world is about opt-out.
But another minor provision of that law may be something more meaningful for traditional work comp systems to keep an eye on.

Oklahoma for some time has had a "value added" provision on its books for attorney fees.
In short, claimant attorneys fees are capped at 30%, but in the past that cap was available only if the employer admitted the claim, provided medical coverage and made a written settlement offer.
Under Senate Bill 1062 all that is required now is that the employer make a written settlement offer, then the claimant attorney fee is capped at 30% of the difference between what the settlement offer is, and what the award actually ends up being.

For instance, if an employer offers an injured worker a settlement of $10,000, the worker hires an attorney and obtains a $15,000 settlement, the claimant's attorney would only be entitled to attorney fees of up to 30% on the $5,000 difference between the two awards.

Because the law in the past required admitting liability and providing medical services, many employers deferred making settlement offers, thus prolonging case adjudication, ergo expense.
Since employers would have to admit the claim in order to invoke the cap on attorney fees, claimants' attorneys began adding additional body parts to increase the value of the case and make it more difficult for employers to admit the claim - employers were loath to admit to body parts that they...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]



Friday, July 21, 2023

Medical Fees Increased and Expanded

 NJ Governor Murphy has signed legislation that establishes parity in workers’ compensation fees between evaluating physicians of claimants for a written opinion regarding the need for medical treatment or providing an estimation of permanent disability. 

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Significant Legislation Advances in New Jersey

Important workers’ compensation legislation is quickly advancing as the current 2018-2019 legislative session comes to a close. A bill increasing the recovery for injuries to hands and feet,  also also embodies a significant requirement that the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development study, on an ongoing basis, the effectiveness of the State’s workers’ compensation program.

Monday, July 29, 2013

What Every Employee Should Know: Preparing For The Defense Independent Medical Examination (IME)

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

After your work injury your employer has a right to make you go to what is called an “Independent Medical Examination” or “IME.” The IME is, basically, an examination by a doctor chosen by your employer who will take your statement of what happened and perform a physical examination.

How you conduct yourself during the IME can help or hurt your case. I strongly recommend that all injured workers follow the recommendations below in preparing for an IME. Before going to the IME, spend an hour or two writing down the history of your injury, including:
  • your current complaints based on the injury,
  • what things cause your injury to be aggravated,
  • and what care and treatment you have been given for your injury.
You will have only a limited amount of time to describe these things to the IME doctor. Therefore, you should take your written statement to the IME and hand a copy of it to the doctor. It is important that you have a well-organized statement. Then make sure what you say to the IME doctor is in keeping with your written statement. Save the written statement and give a copy of it to your attorney.

He or she will be able to use the statement if the things you say in it do not end up in the IME doctor’s record. You will probably be asked to describe your pain. Since pain is subjective, it is often difficult to describe. You might find it easiest to describe activities that worsen your pain. You should have a list of everyday activities that increase your pain.

Be as truthful, accurate, and complete as possible. Even if your care before the IME is poor, I recommend against complaining bitterly about that care. Instead focus on just describing the facts. If true, tell the IME doctor how the care so far has not worked and yet the company doctor continues giving you that same useless care; or how the company doctor spends more time communicating with the company representative than with you.

Recall and apply that old admonition from “Dragnet”---“just the facts, sir, just the facts.” After the IME, your attorney will be interested in knowing exactly what went on in the examination. Thus, after the IME, take at least one-half hour to write down as much as you can remember of the following:
  • what the doctor said,
  • what you answered,
  • what the doctor did,
  • and what if anything was dictated into a recorder,
  • the time that you arrived at the office (be as accurate as possible),
  • the time that you were placed in the examining room,
  • when the doctor entered the room,
  • and when the doctor left the room.
It may be important to have an exact record of the time the doctor spent with you in the examination room. You need to spend some time to prepare for the IME.

By following the guidelines set forth above, you will provide a truthful, accurate, and complete statement of your condition. Hopefully, the IME doctor will then provide your and your employer's attorneys with similar findings, diagnosis, and recommendations for treatment.

Of course, you should spend some time talking to your attorney before any IME. Good luck!
...
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.

Read more about "medical examinations" and workers' compensation.
Jul 15, 2013
Those injured workers who choose to remain in the FECA program must cooperate with OWCP-directed medical examinations and vocational rehabilitation, accept suitable employment if offered, and annually report earnings ...
Aug 02, 2012
In his complaint, Stancil claimed that ACE required him to undergo medical examinations by physicians of its own choosing and then rejected the recommendations of those physicians and refused to authorize the ...
Feb 28, 2012
These standards were based on the results of a literature review and medical examinations indicating a relationship between overwork and brain and heart diseases. In 2002, the MHLW launched the program for the ...
Jul 31, 2012
The Department was recently found to have spent a significant sum on no-show fees to independent medical examination companies without recouping those charges from the claimants who failed to attend the examinations ...

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Where's the New Jersey Conference?

Today's post was shared by WorkCompCentral and comes from daviddepaolo.blogspot.com


There's going to be lots of press surrounding the latest CompScope Benchmarks Study
released by the Workers' Compensation Research Institute, as there always is, and should be. After all, the WCRI is one of the top research groups in our industry and the leadership and staff there work hard to provide as complete and unbiased data as possible.

What is unique about the latest study of 16 states is one common theme - controlling costs has more to do with instituting price schedules for medical services than any other single factor.
The premier example is Illinois, which, after reducing medical fees by 30% across the board on Sept. 1, 2011, saw all medical payments for claims with seven days of lost time declined by 5% for injuries arising in 2011 and evaluated as of 2012. Prices paid for non-hospital services dropped by 24% between 2010 and 2012.

And Texas' claim costs, which ranked the highest in the nation prior to a set of reforms passed in 2005, are now typical of the states studied, according to WCRI , with medical costs per claim 17% lower than the 16-state median for 2009 claims evaluated in 2012. The Institute expects costs to decline further in Texas with the prescription drug formulary that became effective 9/1/2011.
The state's claim cost growth rate is also slowing. Claims costs in Texas grew by between 3% and 6% per year between 2006 and 2011. Costs per claim for the 2010/2012 study period were $5,829 – slightly higher than the $5,354 median.

The flip side is...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Cries of High Costs and Fraud – Watch for Reforms

Today’s post comes from guest author Kit Case, from Causey Wright, Seattle, Washington..

There is always discussion, in every state, about the expense of workers’ compensation insurance to employers. It is common to hear stories of corruption and fraud when employer costs run high. This discussion can lead to cries of fraud, usually with fingers pointed towards claimants and often tied into efforts to reduce benefits to injured workers. As a recent example, take a look at the article published on July 23rd in the Fresno Bee, written by Dan Walters of CALmatters, titled “California workers’ compensation system plagued by high costs and fraud.” In the article, Mr. Walters points to Southern California as an area particularly afflicted by fraud, inserting the hot-button phrase “immigrant workers,” as follows:

Friday, July 19, 2013

Privacy: Workers' Compensation Health Data Heading for Electronic Storage

Medical records are a significant aspect of workers' compensation claims and storing them is a significant issue. As claims are filed and litigation is pursed, medical records become critical evidence in evaluation claims and adjudicating decisions.

With the explosion of electronic medical records mandated by The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, the secure storage. retrieval and dissemination of medical records has become a challenge. Even though The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1999 (HIPPA) mandates a privacy exclusion for workers' compensation claims, the medical records must remain protected and secure to maintain integretary and avoid unlawful access.

Missing from the equation are regulations from workers' compensation agencies to provide for the security and integrity of the records that have been widely disseminated within the workers' compensation system.

One company has has built a "Bunker" for health records.

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Technology - Efficiency - Uniform Procedure

For decades the NJ Workers' Compensation administrative law system has had to adapt to meet the social, political, economic and technological changes of a changing world. The well thought-out proposals by the NJ State Bar Association (NJSBA) are a starting point to the beginning of a new wave of discussion and change.

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, August 9, 2013

Move Over: Obesity as a medical condition is coming to workers' compensation

The recent action by the American Medical Association to recognize obesity as a medical condition is going to have a super-sized impact on workers' compensation systems throughout the nation. Today's post is shared from insurancejournal.com

Report: Obesity Monkier to Impact California Workers’ Comp
"The recognition of obesity as a disease may have a significant impact on workers’ compensation claims in California, a group said in a report on Thursday.

The group issued the report following a decision in June by the American Medical Association House of Delegates to reclassifying obesity as “a disease state.”

In the past obesity in workers’ comp went largely unreported because it was not considered a condition that needed to be addressed to treat most work related injuries or illnesses, according to the report from the California Workers’ Compensation Institute.

But with obesity reclassified as a disease medical providers may feel a greater responsibility to counsel obese patients about their weight, or if treatment for a compensable injury causes significant weight gain, CWCI stated in its report........


Read the entire article

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Shifting the Blame: Doctors Look To Others To Play Biggest Role In Curbing Health Costs

Blame for increased medical costs is getting tossed around like a political football. Those deeply entrenched into the system are pointing their finger at "the other" party to shift responsibility. This reminds one of when CMS in 1980 urged the passage of the Medical Secondary Payer Act. 

As this process continues, ultimately the US Government will be the final authority as Medicare ultimately rules the medical billing field and outcome based medicine seems to be the new goal.

Workers' Compensation system will ultimate adapt or be subsumed by the Medicare protocols in one fashion or another.  Special interests  will have little opportunity to cut out their specialized markets.

Today's post was shared by Kaiser Health News and comes from capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org

In a study, published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Mayo Clinic researchers surveyed more than 2,500 doctors to assess their views of different approaches to rein in the nation’s health care costs. The doctors were randomly selected from an American Medical Association database.
When it comes to controlling the country’s health care costs, doctors point their fingers at lawyers, insurance companies, drug makers and hospitals. But well over half acknowledge they have at least some responsibility as stewards of health care resources.

Based on their findings, 59 percent of doctors believed they have some responsibility in holding down  health care costs. Only 36 percent thought they have a major role.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Counsel Fees Awarded Against An Employer Who Failed to Pay Timely

A NJ Appellate Court has ordered that an employer must pay counsel fees to an injured worker's attorney, on an hourly basis, when the employer is penalized. The employer failed to timely pay an award for compensation benefits to the injured worker. The Appellate Court ruled that the workers' attorney was entitled, in additional to the standard contingency fee, and counsel fees awarded for the appeal of the matter, to an award for services rendered to enforce the Order of the court.

The Appellate Court, presented with the issue three times on appeal, exercised its original jurisdiction, and held "....that an award of attorney's fees is mandatory and the judge of compensation is not limited by the statutory formula governing fee awards following an award of benefits. Quereshi v. Cintas Corp. (Quereshi I), 413 N.J. Super. 492, 503 (App. Div. 2010)."

In its decision the Appellate Court opined, "...the judge of compensation misinterpreted our original opinion"....and that "the alternative interpretation of the judge's action -- willful defiance of our mandate --is completely unacceptable behavior."

Qureshi v. Cintas Corporation, A-2703-10T2 (NJ App Div 2012) Decided Feb 15, 2012 (Quereshi III), Unpublished Decision.  2012 WL 469726 (N.J.Super.A.D.


Related articles

Sunday, December 19, 2021

CMS Announces 2022 Workers' Compensation Recovery Threshold to Remain at $750.00

Computation of Annual Recovery Thresholds for Certain Liability Insurance, No-Fault Insurance, and Workers' Compensation Settlements, Judgments, Awards, or Other Payments for 2022 were announced this week.

Monday, February 22, 2021

Cannabis Legislation Enacted in NJ

Today the NJ Legislature approved, and Governor Phil Murphy signed sweeping legislation to legalize the sale of recreational marijuana. Today's action follows the legislative enactment of medical marijuana laws in NJ and case law approving medical marijuana for the treatment of work-related injuries.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

OSHA finds Metro-North Commuter Railroad retaliated against injured employee

US Labor Department's OSHA finds Metro-North Commuter Railroad
retaliated against injured employee, 
interfered with medical treatment 
Railroad ordered to pay damages, attorney’s fees


An investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has determined that Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co. violated the employee protection provisions of the Federal Railroad Safety Act when it took retaliatory action against an employee at its Harmon Diesel Shop in Croton-on-Hudson who reported a workplace injury. OSHA found that the railroad, which provides commuter rail service in Connecticut, New York and New Jersey, interfered with the worker's medical treatment and forced him to work in violation of his physician's orders.

The employee, a laborer, injured his finger on June 26, 2009, and reported it to management, who first attempted to dissuade him from seeking medical treatment. The worker received sutures at a nearby hospital, where he was instructed to not use his hand until the sutures healed, and to keep the hand clean and dry. The railroad's occupational health service determined that the injury disqualified the worker from duty, but the facilities director of the diesel shop persuaded the health service to change the worker's status to restricted duty. The worker's personal physician excused him from work until the sutures were removed and supplied written notice that he should not lift heavy objects or immerse his hands in chemicals, actions he performed in the normal course of his duties. In spite of these instructions and the employee's restricted work status, management ordered him back to work and required him to perform these duties.

"Metro-North's actions in this case are unacceptable and send a message of intimidation to its workforce," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York. "Railroad employees must be free to report injuries without fear that their employers will harass them, ignore medical instructions or force them to work under conditions that could impair the healing process or cause more harm."

OSHA has ordered Metro-North to pay $10,000 in punitive damages to the worker and $8,830 in attorney's fees, and to expunge any adverse references relating to the employee's exercise of his FRSA rights from his personnel, safety and department files. Metro-North also must post an OSHA notice for employees in the Harmon Diesel Shop and on its internal website, and provide all diesel shop employees with information on employee protections for reporting work-related injuries.

Metro-North and the complainant each have 30 days from receipt of the findings to file an appeal with the Labor Department's Office of Administrative Law Judges. Under the FRSA, employees of a railroad carrier and its contractors and subcontractors are protected against retaliation for reporting on-the-job injuries, reporting certain safety and security violations, and cooperating with investigations by OSHA and other regulatory agencies.

OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of the FRSA and 20 other statutes protecting employees who report violations of various airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, financial reform, food safety, health care reform, nuclear, pipeline, public transportation agency, maritime and securities laws. Under these laws enacted by Congress, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who raise various protected concerns or provide protected information to the employer or to the government. Employees who believe that they have been retaliated against for engaging in protected conduct may file a complaint with the secretary of labor for an investigation by OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program. Detailed employee rights information is available online at http://www.whistleblowers.gov.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Florida Appeallate Court Rules Attorney Fee Statute Unconstitutional

The Florida First District Court of Appeals has held counsel fee provisions in the Workers' Compensation Act to be unconstitutional, ,"We hold that the challenged provisions violate Claimant’s First Amendment guarantees of free speech, freedom of association, and right to petition for redress." Miles v City of Edgewater, Decided April 20, 2016, setting the stage for review by the Florida Supreme Court.

Today's guest post is authored by the Hon. David Langham, Deputy Chief Judge of Compensation Claims for the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims and Division of Administrative Hearings and is shared from http://flojcc.blogspot.com

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

The Trend to Supersize Hospitals

The trickle down effect of the current trend to supersize hospitals through mergers and acquisitions may far reaching unintended consequences on medical costs for employers, insurance companies and injured workers. An consequence of the Affordable Care Act is to encourage hospitals to keep people healthy and avoid hospital admissions.

Hospital have been not only purchasing other hospitals reducing the number of independent hospitals in the US from 5,000 to 1,000, but it has also accelerated the trend for hospitals to purchase lucrative medical practices to earn income from diagnostic tests and to control the flow of hospital admissions.

An unintended consequence of this path may actually increase hospital costs because fewer hospital facilities exist, or the lack of competition may just lead to a universal medical care system. Workers' compensation insurance programs may therefore be required higher fees to hospitals.

"Hospitals across the nation are being swept up in the biggest wave of mergers since the 1990s, a development that is creating giant hospital systems that could one day dominate American health care and drive up costs."

Read the complete article, "New Laws and Rising Costs Create a Surge of Supersizing Hospitals" (NY Times)

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Changes Urged for NJ Workers' Compensation System

The NJ 2017 Gubernatorial election results have not even been reported and major changes to the NJ Workers' Compensation system are already being urged. A leading practitioner in the workers' compensation arena is urging the adoption of a pure wage-loss system to replace the scheduled and time-limited disability benefits now embodied in the Act, and an employee choice of physician statute to replace the present employer directed system.

Saturday, October 21, 2017

The Inherent Judicial Power of Judges of Compensation

A Judge of Compensation has the discretion to call and question witnesses in pending cases. A NJ Appellate Court affirmed the trial court award of additional weeks of temporary disability,  the imposition of a 25% penalty for unreasonable and negligent delay in defending the case and 20% counsel fees.