Chubb Permitted to Sue Travelers in Manville Asbestos Claim

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Chubb was denied its due process in a claim flowing from the Manville bankruptcy that was filed in 1982. In a long and convoluted judicial history, Chubb was seeking reimbursement from Travelers, its insured, for lack of notice of a bankruptcy settlement years before. As a result of that settlement, to which Chubb was not a party, Chubb was sued by a new group of plaintiffs in 2004 as a result of Travelers malfeasance in the asbestos conspiracy.

While denying the asbestos personal injury claimants from seeking recovery, the Court allowed Chubb to proceed with its claim.

"We further hold that Chubb was not adequately represented in the proceedings that lead to the bankruptcy court's approval of the 1984 Insurance Settlement Agreement and the Manville Plan, and that it did not receive adequate notice of the 1986 Orders. Accordingly, both the bankruptcy court and the district court erred by rejecting Chubb's due process argument. Chubb is therefore not bound by the terms of the 1986 Orders. Consequently, it may attack the Orders collaterally as jurisdictionally void. And, as we held in Manville III, that attack is meritorious."

In re Johns-Manville Corp., --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 1007832, C.A.2 (N.Y.),2010., March 22, 2010

Click here to read more about asbestos litigation.

Click here to read more about Travelers Insurance Company.

Modification Denied Despite Expert Increases

A NJ Appellate Court affirmed a trial court's decision to deny a petitioner modification of a prior award despite the fact that medical experts on both sides found an increase in disability.

"Respondent's neuropsychiatric expert, L. Scott Eisenberg, M.D., examined petitioner on March 9, 2004. He noted petitioner's unrelated medical disorders as hypertension, diabetes, and a viral infection of the eye. He also noted that he had previously examined petitioner in December 2000. Dr. Eisenberg found "[a] degree of elaboration" by petitioner regarding his subjective complaints and concluded that there was no objective evidence of any increase in neurologic disability in 2004. He wrote: "Assuming the complaints and his presentation for the neuropsychiatric point of view are bona fide, I would estimate an additional disability in that regard of 2% of partial total related to his back condition."

"The judge of compensation was not bound to accept the conclusions of petitioner's doctors. See Perez v. Capitol Ornamental, Concrete Specialties, Inc., 288 N.J.Super. 359, 367-68 (App.Div.1996). On this record, he could reasonably accept the conclusions of respondent's doctors that they found no objective medical evidence in 2004 and 2006 demonstrating an increase in disability from that in 2000.

JOSE MEDINA-SEGARRA v RUDL FENCING & DECKING,, DOCKET NO. A-3652-08T2, 2010 WL 1029948 (N.J.Super.A.D.).

Click here to read more about expert witnesses and workers' compensation.

Medical Criteria Swamp for WTC First Responders

The threshold question in determining compensability in any program is how to construct a system that will provide immediate and expeditious delivery. The sick first responders to the horrific attack of September 11, 2001, are still struggling to obtain benefits.

The recent plan offered by the WTC Captive Insurance Company, and rejected by the Court, sets forth elaborate eligibility and disability criteria.  The 96 page agreement, and accompanying exhibits, outlining the settlement process provides insight into struggle.

Drawing from far and wide, the proposed agreement tries to cover all potential diseases and schedule them.

"To constitute a Qualifying Injury, an alleged injury must satisfy all three of the following components of the Medical Proof Criteria: (i) it must be one of the “Qualifying Injuries” listed expressly in the tables immediately below; (ii) it must meet the “Diagnostic Criteria” applicable to the Disease Group in which the Qualifying Injury is listed in the tables immediately below; and (iii) it must satisfy the “Impairment Criteria” for the Disease Group in which the Qualifying Injury is listed in the tables..."

The sources include:

"European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society COPD Guidelines – 2005; ATS/ERS Criteria for Diagnosis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Disease in Absence of  Surgical Lung Biopsy; Global Initiative for Asthma/World Health Organization; American College of Chest Physicians Consensus Statement; British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines for the  management of rhinosinusitis and nasal polyposis. Scadding GK; Durham SR; Mirakian R;  Jones NS; Drake-Lee AB; Ryan D; Dixon TA; Huber PA; Nasser SM - Clin Exp Allergy.  2008 Feb; 38(2):260-75. Epub 2007 Dec 20.

The proposed system is yet another attempt to quantify disability and adds another set of elaborate medical criteria and complexity to the insurance company playbook. The loquaciousness of the authors of the proposal is mind boggling. This level of sophistication can only compound the delivery of benefits. This proposal is yet another example of the compelling need for one universal national program that can provide benefits to injured workers without the need of hip  high boots to navigate the swamp.

Click here to read more about 911 WTC claims.

Judge Rejects 911 Settlement -- $595 Million Not Enough

A US District Court Judge rejected the proposed settlement for $595 Million, for 911 first ill responders, declared it to be "not enough."

The Judge in reviewing the proposal said, "In my judgment, this settlement is not enough." Judge Alvin Hellerstein remarked, "I have the power of review, and I don't think it is fair."

A proposal was presented by the WTC Captive Insurance Company that manages the $1 Billion fund established by Congress to pay injured workers. 

The Court ordered more settlement discussions in an effort to seek a fair resolution of the litigation. 

Click here to read more about 911 WTC claims.

Workers Compensation Insurance Company Ordered to Pay For Gastric Bypass

Treating medical conditions that are necessary to relieve and cure a medical condition is the responsibility generally of workers' compensation programs throughout the United States. Now a Court has ordered that an insurance company must treat a persons obesity as an extension of its medical benefits so that weight reduction can occur and the underlying work related condition can be addressed.

"Claimant slipped and fell at work in 2002, and his ensuing workers' compensation claim presently encompasses, among other things, injuries to his head, neck, back and knees. His morbid obesity has contributed to his knee and back problems and, in an effort to combat those problems and counter a broader threat to his survival, claimant sought authorization to undergo gastric bypass surgery. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge granted his request. Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, holding that the surgery was causally related to the compensable injuries. 

In affirming the decision the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York held:

"The employer is obliged to pay for claimant's medical care “for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require” (Workers' Compensation Law § 13[a]; see Matter of Spyhalsky v. Cross Constr., 294 A.D.2d 23, 25-26 [2002] ). There is evidence in the record that claimant has gained a substantial amount of weight since 2002 due to the sedentary lifestyle imposed by the compensable injuries. Claimant's treating orthopedic surgeon opined that claimant's back and knee pain was exacerbated by his obesity and that such could be alleviated by weight loss. An independent medical examiner agreed, opining that weight loss would “certainly” help those conditions. While material in the record before us could support a different result, substantial evidence exists for the Board's determination that claimant's weight gain was caused by his compensable injuries and that gastric bypass surgery “would assist in [his] recovery” ( Matter of Bolds v. Precision Health, Inc., 16 A.D.3d 1007, 1009 [2005]; see Workers' Compensation Law § 13[a]; Matter of Spyhalsky v. Cross Constr., 294 A.D.2d at 25-26, 743 N.Y.S.2d 212).

Laezzo v. New York State Thruway Authority, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2010 WL 812862, N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2010, March 11, 2010.

Click here to read more about obesity and workers' compensation.

The Limited Application of a RICO Claim

A Federal District Court in Michigan has dismissed a RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] claim against Sedwick Claims Management Services. The plaintiffs alleged that the insurance company, "....'engaged in a scheme to defraud employees of the minimum wages and fringe benefits to which they were entitled' under the McNamara-O'Hara Services Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. 351,et seq. (SCA), 'in violation of the civil provisions of ... RICO.'"

In dismissing the case, the court reasoned, "an injured worker may not use RICO as an 'end run' around the exclusive procedures and remedies prescribed by the WDCA [Michigan's Workers Disability Compensation Act] -Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have filed this action in an attempt to convert their workers compensation disputes into a federal RICO case-the basis of which is the Defendants' allegedly-fraudulent violation of the WDCA. Plaintiffs' effort to convert their disputes over benefits into RICO claims, while creative, must be rejected. Plaintiffs' RICO claims seek to expand RICO far beyond its intended reach. As the federal courts have repeatedly held, a plaintiff may not use a RICO claim as an 'end run' around a comprehensive, specialized, and exclusive administrative scheme like the scheme established by the WDCA. Yet that is precisely what these Plaintiffs seek to do."

"....RICO was never intended to create a path into courts for litigants who would otherwise be limited to exclusive administrative remedies and procedures, and subject to strict damages limitations. The Court finds that Plaintiffs may not use their RICO claim to reform Michigan's workers' compensation law-allowing them to do so would be an unwarranted intrusion into Michigan state law and procedure."

Jackson v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., 2010 WL 931864, E.D. Mich. 2010, March 11, 2010.

Click here to read more RICO claims and workers' compensation.

CMS Announces New Life Tables

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has recently published its 2005 United States Life Tables. Effective April 12, 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will begin referencing the CDC's Table 1: Life table for the total population: United States, 2005, for WCMSA life expectancy calculations. This means that for any newly submitted WCMSA proposal received by CMS' Coordination of Benefits Contractor (COBC), or where any WCMSA case is reopened on or after April 12, 2010, CMS will apply the CDC's 2005 Table 1 for life expectancy calculations.

In 2005, the overall expectation of life at birth was 77.4 years, representing a decline of 0.1 years from life expectancy in 2004. From 2004 to 2005, life expectancy at birth remained the same for males (74.9), females (79.9), the white population (77.9), white males (75.4), white females (80.4), the black population (72.8), and black males (69.3). Life expectancy at birth increased for black females (from 76.0 to 76.1). Life expectancy estimates based on the revised meth­ odology are slightly lower than those based on the previous method­ ology. For 2005, life expectancy at birth based on the revised methodology was lower by 0.4 years for the total population.

Click here to read more about "Life Expectancy" and workers' compensation.