Workplace safety is a significant issue in the waning days of the Trump Administration as Congress struggles to pass legislation before the end of the calendar year when CARES Act support terminates for many American workers. As the winter/holiday season coronavirus surge challenges hospital capacity and causing additional closure of non-essential jobs, the Republicans remain adamant about restricting lawsuits against employers.
Showing posts sorted by date for query psychiatric. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query psychiatric. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Monday, December 14, 2020
Wednesday, December 9, 2020
NCCI Reports: NJ Among the Top States with COVID-19 Workers' Compensation Claims
The National Council on Compensation Claims, Inc., [NCCI] has reported that the COVID-19 workers' compensation claims in the State of New Jersey number among the highest in the nation.
Investigative Reporting: "Should NJ hospitals be required to tell public about staff COVID-19 outbreaks?"
Northjersey.com reporters Lindy Washburn and Dustin Racioppi have published an insightful. investigative article on the incidence of COVIS-19 occurring in New Jersey hospitals.
Tuesday, December 8, 2020
NJ Senate Advances Expanded Parking Lot Bill
The New Jersey Senate Labor Committee voted to release a bill that expands workers' compensation coverage to parking areas provided by an employer.
Monday, December 7, 2020
Trust Through Transparency
A significant concern of employees, employers, and insurance companies is whether or not the new COVID-19 vaccines are safe to take. Vaccine efficacy is going to have a significant impact on the decision-making process.
NJ Plans to Enroll COVID-19 Recipients in the New Jersey Immunization Information System
If you receive a COVID-19 vaccine in the state of New Jersey you will be now automatically enrolled in the New Jersey Immunization Information System (NJIIS). This information will reduce paperwork and increase efficiency and provide record-keeping data for those who are authorized to receive this information. The information will be electronically stored and available over the Internet 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Sunday, December 6, 2020
NYC Prepares for the Next Pandemic
Planning ahead is critical to avoiding uncontrollable infectious diseases. Looking forward, employers and insurance carriers should expand their health prevention programs and join efforts like those New York City has announced to prepare for the next pandemic. Inventing prevention is a necessity.
Thursday, December 3, 2020
U.S. Department of Transportation Announces Final Rule on Traveling by Air with Service Animals
The U.S. Department of Transportation announced that it is revising its Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) regulation on the transportation of service animals by air to ensure a safe and accessible air transportation system. The final rule on Traveling by Air with Service Animals can be found HERE.
Air Ambulance Billing Issues Appealed to US Supreme Court
The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is being asked to review the pre-emption issue involving air ambulance billing charges. A Petition for Certiorari was filed by PHI Air Medical, LLC following the denial of the Texas Supreme Court to honor the full air ambulance billing changes in a workers’ compensation claim.
Monday, November 30, 2020
Former Head of OSHA to Join Biden-Harris Transition Team
Workforce health continues to be focus of concern by the Biden-Harris Transition team. President-elect Joe Biden announced new members of the Transition COVID-19 Advisory Board.
Saturday, November 28, 2020
Survivors of COVID-19 appear to be at increased risk of psychiatric sequelae
A recent study concludes that survivors of COVID-19 appear to be at increased risk of psychiatric sequelae. This reports reflects the potential for an increased surge of workers’ compensation claims attributed to exposure to coronavirus in the workplace.
Friday, June 7, 2019
Burnout Classified as a Medical Condition
Today's post is shared from etui.org
Meeting in Geneva on 20-27 May 2019 for its 72nd session, the World Health Organization (WHO) World Assembly has taken a landmark decision. Referring to the conclusions of health experts, it has declared burn-out to be an “occupational phenomenon”, opening the door to having it classified in the WHO's International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Codenamed “QD85”, burn-out is now to be found in the section on “problems associated with employment or unemployment”.
In the words of the WHO, burn-out “specifically refers to phenomena related to the professional context and should not be used to describe experiences in other areas of life.”
The new International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) will come into force on January 1, 2022.
First identified in the 1970s, burn-out had not yet been listed in any of the international classifications (i.e, that of the WHO or the American Psychiatric Association).
The UNO’s specialist agency had initially stated that burn-out had been included as a disease in the ICD, a classification used for identifying health trends and statistics. However, the next day a WHO spokesperson issued a revised statement, saying that burn-out was going to be switched from the category “factors influencing health status” to “occupational phenomena”, though without being included in the list of “diseases”.
“Inclusion in this chapter means that burn-out is not conceptualized as a medical condition, but as an occupational phenomenon”, the spokesman clarified in a communiqué.
See also:
Vers une reconnaissance du burn-out comme maladie ?, in : Le Monde, 28/05/2019
The new WHO classification is available online: https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/129180281
….
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900jon@gelmans.com has been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Thursday, January 18, 2018
Credibility is Essential Where Superseding Intervening Events Exist - Unpublished Opinion
Credible evidence is essential in the proof of a workers’ compensation case. To prove a case at trial the parties must offer credible evidence to the trier of the facts, especially where there appears to be a laundry list of intervening and superseding events since the time of the accident at work.
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Workers’ Compensation and Judicial Discretion - Unpublished Decision
Even if something looks, sound and smells correct, judges must use their discretion within the bounds of due process restrictions. The road to final justice in workers’ compensation can sometimes be a long one.
Friday, May 22, 2015
Compensable Mental Stress and Conflict of Law Decisions Posted
The NJ Division of Workers' Compensation [NJDWC] today published 3 Court of Compensation trial level decisions. All were favorable to the injured workers and their dependents.
1. Mental Stress: Stress (harassment) particular to employment results in compensable psychiatric claim
Ross v. City of Asbury Park
06–28659; decided July 28, 2008 by the Honorable Leslie A. Berich
Petitioner alleged compensable injury as a result of mental stress created by prolonged exposure to a hostile work environment. Respondent denied these allegations. After applying the Goyden test along with other relevant legal principles, the Judge of Compensation found that there were objectively stressful working conditions peculiar to the petitioner’s working environment which entitled the petitioner to workers compensation benefits.
2. Mental Stress: Specific event (Hurricane) results in compensable suicide claim
Wilde v. Township of Cranford
99–40680; decided January 17, 2008 by the Honorable Leslie A. Berich
Petitioner filed a claim for dependency benefits for herself and her two children by asserting that her husband suffered a stress-induced occupational suicide. The respondent defended against the claim by contending that the work of the deceased, including his work as a policeman during Hurricane Floyd, was not causally related to his suicide. After careful consideration of the evidence, the Judge of Compensation awarded dependency benefits based on her finding that the work of the deceased as a policeman during this storm "lead to a loss of normal rational judgment that resulted in his suicide".
3. Conflict of Laws: NJ law applied where a special state interest existed
Spiros v. Atlantic Ambulatory Anesthesia Assocs. & Shrewsbury Surgical Center
12–22032; 13-1069 decided October 27, 2014 by the Honorable Leslie A. Beric
Medical providers filed applications for payment/reimbursement of medical expenses, which alleged that the insurance carrier for the employer unreasonably reduced the petitioner’s bills for services rendered. The carrier filed an answer in which it denied liability and jurisdiction, asserting the petitioner’s bills could be paid only at a contractual rate highly limited by Tennessee statute. The carrier also filed motions to dismiss the medical provider claims. In analyzing whether New Jersey has a special state interest in cases where medical providers provide services in New Jersey to injured workers, the Judge of Compensation found that N.J.S.A. 34:15-15 gives New Jersey’s Division of Workers’ Compensation exclusive subject matter jurisdiction and New Jersey law applies where the workers’ compensation benefits were provided in this state. Accordingly, the carrier’s motions to dismiss the medical providers’ claims were denied.
Summaries were provided by the NJ DWC.
1. Mental Stress: Stress (harassment) particular to employment results in compensable psychiatric claim
Ross v. City of Asbury Park
06–28659; decided July 28, 2008 by the Honorable Leslie A. Berich
Petitioner alleged compensable injury as a result of mental stress created by prolonged exposure to a hostile work environment. Respondent denied these allegations. After applying the Goyden test along with other relevant legal principles, the Judge of Compensation found that there were objectively stressful working conditions peculiar to the petitioner’s working environment which entitled the petitioner to workers compensation benefits.
2. Mental Stress: Specific event (Hurricane) results in compensable suicide claim
Wilde v. Township of Cranford
99–40680; decided January 17, 2008 by the Honorable Leslie A. Berich
Petitioner filed a claim for dependency benefits for herself and her two children by asserting that her husband suffered a stress-induced occupational suicide. The respondent defended against the claim by contending that the work of the deceased, including his work as a policeman during Hurricane Floyd, was not causally related to his suicide. After careful consideration of the evidence, the Judge of Compensation awarded dependency benefits based on her finding that the work of the deceased as a policeman during this storm "lead to a loss of normal rational judgment that resulted in his suicide".
3. Conflict of Laws: NJ law applied where a special state interest existed
Spiros v. Atlantic Ambulatory Anesthesia Assocs. & Shrewsbury Surgical Center
12–22032; 13-1069 decided October 27, 2014 by the Honorable Leslie A. Beric
Medical providers filed applications for payment/reimbursement of medical expenses, which alleged that the insurance carrier for the employer unreasonably reduced the petitioner’s bills for services rendered. The carrier filed an answer in which it denied liability and jurisdiction, asserting the petitioner’s bills could be paid only at a contractual rate highly limited by Tennessee statute. The carrier also filed motions to dismiss the medical provider claims. In analyzing whether New Jersey has a special state interest in cases where medical providers provide services in New Jersey to injured workers, the Judge of Compensation found that N.J.S.A. 34:15-15 gives New Jersey’s Division of Workers’ Compensation exclusive subject matter jurisdiction and New Jersey law applies where the workers’ compensation benefits were provided in this state. Accordingly, the carrier’s motions to dismiss the medical providers’ claims were denied.
Summaries were provided by the NJ DWC.
Monday, November 24, 2014
When An Employer Should Not Deny Medical Care
It is always tricky slope for an employer to deny medical
care based on a pre-existing medical condition. The employer must be absolutely
certain that the proofs offered at trial will provide a credible basis for a
ruling by the Court. Without that certainty, the employer could be subject to
paying for uncontrolled medical care as well as for penalties.
Some employers avoid those dire consequences by providing
medical care with reservation as the NJ Statute allows. The employer can then subrogate
a claim against the correct primary medical provider should the claim be
denied.
“Johnson [injured
worker] presented extensive medical proofs, including the testimony of treating
physicians and expert witnesses. This included the deposition testimony of Steven
P. Brownstein, M.D., a practitioner of diagnostic radiology. Brownstein opined
that the disputed MRI could not belong to Johnson because herniated discs and
bone spurs do not spontaneously disappear. Brownstein also stated that the 1999
MRI films depicted a fifty-year-old man, while Johnson’s 2006 MRIs were of a man
no older than thirty-five.
Additionally, the
employee testified that he never had the prior MRI. The Court found the
petitioner to be a credible witness.
The employer refused to pay for medical care following
from a compensable accident at work. The Court ruled that the actions of the
employer were incorrect and that the employer should be held responsible for
paying for medical care since it was requested by the injured employee and
subsequently denied by the employer. Following the rule in Benson v Coca Cola Co., 120 N.J. Super. 120 (NJ App. Div. 1972), a NJ employer was responsible for medical care
requested by the employee and denied by the employer as the accident was held
compensable.
“The JWC also found,
pursuant to Benson v. Coca Cola Co., 120 N.J.Super. 60
(App.Div.1972) , that Johnson “was well within his rights to seek
outside treatment” based upon City’s denial of the April incident, the dilatory
fashion in which it referred Johnson for treatment after the May incident, and
its refusal to provide medical care even when recommended by its first medical
examiner. He thus concluded the exception expressed in Benson applied and that it would have been futile
for Johnson to have continued to request coverage for medical expenses.
The Compensation Judge is giving a wide spectrum of
discretion as to determine the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses:
“Our highly
deferential standard of review is of particular importance in this case, where
appellant’s principal points of error hinge on the JWC’s credibility determinations.
See Hersh v. Cnty. of Morris, 217 N.J. 236, 242 (2014)
(quoting Sager,
supra, 182 N.J. at 164). The JWC
has the discretion to accept or reject expert testimony, in whole or in part. Kaneh v. Sunshine Biscuits, 321 N.J.Super. 507, 511
(App.Div.1999) . The judge is considered to have “expertise with respect
to weighing the testimony of competing medical experts and appraising the
validity of [the petitioner’s] compensation claim.” Ramos
v. M & F Fashions, 154 N.J. 583, 598 (1998 .
The Court went also
reiterate the Belth Doctrine holding that the employer takes the employee as he
finds him. While the Belth decision predates the 1979 Amendments to the NJ
Workers’ Compensation Act it remains valid as to the exacerbation of an underlying medical issue. Belth v. Anthony Ferrante & Son, Inc., 47 N.J. 38, 219 A.2d 168 (1966).
“ Employers are responsible for treatment
of a preexisting condition which is exacerbated by a work accident. Sexton v. Cnty. of Cumberland, 404 N.J.Super. 542, 555
(App.Div.2009) . The burden is on the employer
to prove that the compensable accident was not the cause of the exacerbation.
In this case, City did nothing more than attempt to prove that Johnson was
lying about his 1999 medical conditions.
Even if City is correct, in the judge’s opinion, Johnson objectively
established that the May 2006 accident caused him significant cervical and
psychiatric injuries from which he currently suffers.
….
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Urgent Care Centers Opening For People With Mental lllness
Hoping to keep more people with mental illness out of jails and emergency rooms, county health officials opened a mental health urgent care center Wednesday in South Los Angeles.
The goal of The Martin Luther King, Jr. Mental Health Urgent Care Center is to stabilize and treat people in immediate crisis while connecting them to ongoing care. Run by Exodus Recovery, it will be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and can serve up to 16 adults and six adolescents. During their stay of up to one day, patients will undergo a psychiatric evaluation, receive on-the-spot care such as counseling and medication and be referred for longer-term treatment.
The center can take people in severe crisis and expects many will be brought in by police and paramedics, said Connie Dinh, vice president of nursing services for Exodus. But she said it cannot accept people who are incoherent, extremely aggressive or need emergency medical attention. They will still need to be treated at hospitals or inpatient psychiatric facilities.
Staff will be able to place people on 72-hour psychiatric holds if they are a danger to themselves or others.
Mental health urgent care centers, also known as crisis stabilization units, are opening throughout California in response to the shortage of psychiatric beds and the increase in patients with mental illnesses showing up at hospital emergency rooms with nowhere else to go,...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Compensation denied for false imprisonment type situation
The NJ Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an employee's claim for mental disability based upon confinement by the employer against her will. The reviewing tribunal accepted the rationale of the the compensation court judge that the event was not a material contributing cause of the disability.
Since the amendment to the NJ workers' compensation act in 1979, an employer is not responsible for a condition that is not materially contributing by the employment. Prior to 1979 the standard was that the employer took the employee as they found him or her. If the work related event was the "straw that broke the camel's back," the employer was then responsible for the end result.
In this instance, the trial judge had found that the employee had a pre-existing mental disability following from childhood sexual abuse and that condition was the sole material contributing cause of the injured workers' mental disability. The employment episode was deemed unrelated.
The Court held: "Here, the judge found appellant's history of childhood sexual abuse was in fact the true source of her disability; this finding is similar to Goyden, where the court found the appellant's compulsive personality and childhood problems caused his unfortunate reactions to his work environment. Id. at 458–59. Here, the testimony of Dr. Pipchick yields a similar analysis; she clearly stated that without the childhood sexual abuse, appellant would not have had the disabling response to the incident. Even though the incident may have “triggered” the appellant's PTSD, it did not cause the disability, and thus there is no basis for compensation."
Since the amendment to the NJ workers' compensation act in 1979, an employer is not responsible for a condition that is not materially contributing by the employment. Prior to 1979 the standard was that the employer took the employee as they found him or her. If the work related event was the "straw that broke the camel's back," the employer was then responsible for the end result.
In this instance, the trial judge had found that the employee had a pre-existing mental disability following from childhood sexual abuse and that condition was the sole material contributing cause of the injured workers' mental disability. The employment episode was deemed unrelated.
The Court held: "Here, the judge found appellant's history of childhood sexual abuse was in fact the true source of her disability; this finding is similar to Goyden, where the court found the appellant's compulsive personality and childhood problems caused his unfortunate reactions to his work environment. Id. at 458–59. Here, the testimony of Dr. Pipchick yields a similar analysis; she clearly stated that without the childhood sexual abuse, appellant would not have had the disabling response to the incident. Even though the incident may have “triggered” the appellant's PTSD, it did not cause the disability, and thus there is no basis for compensation."
For additional analysis of workers' compensation psychiatric disability claims see Gelman, Workers' Compensation Law, 38 NJ Practice 9.12 Psychological Disability--Harassment: "In Goyden the NJ Supreme Court rendered a split decision regarding the standard for awarding permanent disability for psychological illness arising out of stressful work conditions. The Court affirmed the opinion of the Appellate Division which stated that stress must stem from objectively proven stressful work conditions rather than from conditions the petitioner found stressful. The Court required the establishment of conditions “peculiar” to the workplace, conditions which justified the medical opinion that they were the “material” causes of the petitioner's disability.....“That Goyden's particular characteristics as a person may have made him more sensitive or susceptible to the influences of stress or even predisposed to develop a psychological illness does not impugn the Court's conclusion that his disability arose out of and in the course of employment,” the minority wrote. Goyden v. State, Judiciary, 128 N.J. 54, 607 A.2d 622 (1992)."
Rizzo v. Kean University, Not Reported in A.3d, 2014 WL 2590281 (N.J.Super.A.D.) June 12, 2014
Saturday, April 5, 2014
VA pays out $200 million for nearly 1,000 veterans’ wrongful deaths
Today's post was shared by FairWarning and comes from cironline.org
An Iraq War veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder and a history of drug dependency is found dead on the floor of his room at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in West Los Angeles after doctors give him a 30-day supply of the anti-anxiety medication alprazolam and a 15-day supply of methadone. In Shreveport, La., a veteran overdoses on morphine while housed in a locked VA psychiatric unit. In a Minnesota VA psych ward, a veteran shoots himself in the head. In Portland, Ore., a delusional veteran jumps off the roof of the VA hospital. These are some of the deaths that resulted in more than $200 million in wrongful death payments by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the decade after 9/11, according to VA data obtained by The Center for Investigative Reporting. In that time, CIR found the agency made wrongful death payments to nearly 1,000 grieving families, ranging from decorated Iraq War veterans who shot or hanged themselves after being turned away from mental health treatment, to Vietnam veterans whose cancerous tumors were identified but allowed to grow, to missed diagnoses, botched surgeries and fatal neglect of elderly veterans. “It wasn’t about the money, I just thought somebody should be held accountable,” said 86-year-old Doris Street, who received a $135,000 settlement in 2010 as compensation for the 2008 death of her brother, Carl Glaze. The median payment in VA wrongful death cases was $150,000. Glaze, a... |
[Click here to see the rest of this post]
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
The Aggressor Rule Sometimes Makes Good Sense
In some jurisdictions, the one who initiates an assault is denied workers' compensation benefits. In others, it is not a bar to a claim as in California. One would expect that yet another change will be coming to the law in California. One would think that the conduct of this police officer gives rise to rethinking the concept of compensability. Today's post is shared from davisenterprise.com
The University of California and the former police officer who pepper-sprayed Occupy UC Davis protesters have reached a workers’ compensation settlement totaling $38,059.
John Pike, 40, of Roseville, suffered depression and anxiety brought on by death threats to him and his family that followed the Nov. 18, 2011, confrontation at an encampment on the Quad.
Administrative Law Judge Harter approved the settlement agreement on Oct. 16.
“This case has been resolved in accordance with state law and processes on workers’ compensation,” university spokesman Andy Fell said in an email message. Pike’s Sacramento attorney, Jason Marcus, declined to comment on Wednesday.
Bernie Goldsmith, a Davis attorney supportive of the student protesters, called it “interesting to see a dollars-and-cents compensation for universal revilement.”
“This sends a clear message to the next officer nervously facing off with a group of passive, unarmed students: Go on ahead. Brutalize them. Trample their rights. You will be well taken care of,” Goldsmith said.
The state’s Disability Evaluation Unit determines permanent disability ratings based on doctors’ reports. Richard Lieberman, a Piedmont psychiatrist acting as the agreed-upon expert, rated Pike ’s disability as “moderate,” according to a Jan. 5 psychiatric report released by the State Department of Industrial Relations in response to a public records request.
Pike faced...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]
The University of California and the former police officer who pepper-sprayed Occupy UC Davis protesters have reached a workers’ compensation settlement totaling $38,059.
John Pike, 40, of Roseville, suffered depression and anxiety brought on by death threats to him and his family that followed the Nov. 18, 2011, confrontation at an encampment on the Quad.
Administrative Law Judge Harter approved the settlement agreement on Oct. 16.
“This case has been resolved in accordance with state law and processes on workers’ compensation,” university spokesman Andy Fell said in an email message. Pike’s Sacramento attorney, Jason Marcus, declined to comment on Wednesday.
Bernie Goldsmith, a Davis attorney supportive of the student protesters, called it “interesting to see a dollars-and-cents compensation for universal revilement.”
“This sends a clear message to the next officer nervously facing off with a group of passive, unarmed students: Go on ahead. Brutalize them. Trample their rights. You will be well taken care of,” Goldsmith said.
The state’s Disability Evaluation Unit determines permanent disability ratings based on doctors’ reports. Richard Lieberman, a Piedmont psychiatrist acting as the agreed-upon expert, rated Pike ’s disability as “moderate,” according to a Jan. 5 psychiatric report released by the State Department of Industrial Relations in response to a public records request.
Pike faced...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]
….
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)