NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.
Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.
Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.
Below is an update to Operations at the Office of Administrative Hearings:
Until further notice, in-person hearings continue to be limited to critical, priority matters that cannot effectively be held by a remote method (e.g. telephone). Judges are making decisions on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the parties. This policy will be in effect for the indefinite and foreseeable future.
Virtual proceedings
In the last OAH update, it was announced that they were adding a web-based platform for video proceedings to replace some telephone proceedings. On May 20, 2020, it was announced that Microsoft Teams is the platform that OAH will use for virtual proceedings. Judges and staff have engaged in mock hearings using Microsoft Teams and provided feedback around the technology itself and business processes.
OAH will start with highly predictable, lower-risk proceedings that are already being held by telephone. We will slowly and deliberatively incorporate more judges and more complicated proceedings as we all become accustomed to this new experience. Judges will continue to make decisions on a case-by-case basis and in consultation with parties. Starting in June, judges will contact parties to suggest converting select proceedings to Teams. Parties should not contact the assigned judge.
OAH chose Microsoft Teams for the following reasons:
What are the next steps at CWK Law?
With virtual Hearings on the horizon, we are working to become proficient in using Microsoft Teams. This will be important to the effective presentation of cases, especially when it comes to seamlessly presenting exhibits and arguments. We will also need to prepare our witnesses to use this software as well. Our plan is to participate in training sessions, demos, and possibly mock hearings. Below are links provided by OAH for sessions and instructions to utilize as training.
https://microsoftteams.eventbuilder.com/MaximizingTeamsMeetings
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/meetings-in-teams-e0b0ae21-53ee-4462-a50d-ca9b9e217b67
https://support.office.com/en-us/article/join-a-teams-meeting-078e9868-f1aa-4414-8bb9-ee88e9236ee4
By: Parker T. Olson
(952) 525-6930
As of July 1, 2020, the maximum workers’ compensation payable is increased to $920.00 per week and the minimum is increased to $253.00 per week. The memorandum regarding the new minimum and maximum rates issued by the Director of the Alabama Department of Labor Workers’ Compensation Division, Steve Garrett, can be accessed here.
Unfortunately, this newsletter does not contain good news for Georgia’s employers and Insurers. The Supreme Court has dealt a final blow to the scheduled rest break defense, leaving it essentially ineffective absent the most narrow of circumstances.
As is always the case, prepared employers are ever-adapting to changing conditions within our comp system and this ruling should cause us to rethink the manner in which we handle employee breaks and “free time”.
Casey B. Foreman
Levy, Sibley, Foreman & Speir, LLC
cforeman@lsfslaw.com
(866) 995-8663
Employers, third party administrators and insurance carriers have for months been expending a great deal of time collecting information needed to make compensability decisions in respect to COVID-19 claims. There are many important questions to be asked in making such decisions. This blog focuses not so much on specific questions but on areas of inquiry.
PCP and Hospital Records
Primary care physician records as well as hospital records related to COVID-19 are often pivotal in making compensability decisions. The PCP records often document when symptoms first appeared and what those symptoms were. The physician almost always asks the patient questions about the source of the coronavirus, specifically whether that source is a family member, friend, work associate, or someone whom the employee was assisting or caring for. Similarly, initial hospital admission records may assist in confirming the start of symptoms and source information.
Source and Exposure Identification
Questions should focus on where and how the employee believes he or she contracted the virus. Sometimes the employee knows no specific source and other times the employee is quite certain of the source. Whether the employee indicates the source is a colleague, patient, or customer, follow-up questions should address how much time the employee spent working with this individual or individuals and how close they physically were. Was there daily contact and what was the physical work situation? Does the employee know whether the source has tested positive for COVID-19? Were masks or protective devices being used?
Quarantine Issues
One area of inquiry should be whether any colleagues, close friends or family members have been quarantined within the past month. If the answer is affirmative, follow-up questions need to focus on the reason for the quarantine and whether the employee is aware of positive or negative test results for the individual who was quarantined. If the quarantined individual is a family member, it is important to ask about contact which the employee had with the family member before, during and after the period of quarantine. The dates of the quarantine period should also be identified.
Travel Issues
Each states has had somewhat different approaches to responding to the coronavirus, so it is important to ask questions about travel both within and outside the employee’s home state and places where the employee visited and stayed. By the same token, inquiry should be made about any friends or relatives who have visited the employee in the last month and the health of the visitor.
Timeline Questions
The CDC advises that respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 usually appear an average of 5-6 days after exposure, but symptoms may appear in as few as 2 days or as long as 14 days after exposure. This is important to keep in mind in the event that the employee has just recently tested positive for COVID-19 but is pointing to a source that the employee has not been around for four weeks. It is often difficult for any of us to remember what we were doing a few weeks ago. Calendars and emails are often helpful in refreshing recollection.
Outside Activities
Questions need to be asked about recent gatherings, whether they be religious, social, or entertainment oriented. Family get-togethers have been documented in many articles as a source of spreading coronavirus. It is worthwhile to ask the employee whether he or she has been shopping in the past month and worthwhile to confirm that the employee wore a mask or similar covering.
Symptoms and Medications
Questions about symptoms and medications are significant because one can have COVID-19 long before a positive test confirms it. The questions should document when symptoms occurred, what they were, what medications were taken, and whether symptoms changed over time. This information can often be checked against family doctor or hospital records. For those who have had symptoms, it is helpful to pin down the nature and severity of the symptoms. This information may take on added significance if a claim petition should later be filed in the Division with allegations of impairment of specific bodily organs. Of course, as has been well documented, some people who are positive for COVID-19 have no symptoms at all.
COVID -19 Testing
It is necessary to ask about positive and negative COVID-19 test results and the dates of those tests. If a physician or hospital was involved in facilitating the testing, those records should be obtained.
Last Employment Date and Second Jobs
An employee who reports a COVID-19 claim should be asked when he or she last worked, whether the work was performed on site or remotely, and whether the individual has another job. There are hundreds of thousands of employees in New Jersey who work part-time jobs. An EMT may work part-time in that position but have another full-time position. A nurse or technician may work part-time for two hospitals. Decisions on compensability are obviously much more complicated when someone has two jobs since there may be potential exposure in one or both jobs or no exposure at all. In multi-employment situations, it becomes critical to obtain a record of the days worked in each position. That information should be compared with the timeline of symptoms and illness.
Summary
These are some of the key areas of inquiry that will facilitate decisions on compensability. Employers, third party administrators and carriers should bear in mind that when if a decision is made to accept a COVID-19 claim, that does not mean that the allegations of the formal Claim Petition have necessarily been accepted. For instance, if an employee has contracted work-related COVID-19 and files a claim petition alleging permanent pulmonary impairment and psychiatric impairment, the pulmonary and psychiatric aspects of the claim petition may still be denied. Just as in any workers’ compensation claim, there must be a showing of objective evidence of causally-related impairment to support an award in workers’ compensation.
The author has a useful list of questions for clients and readers to help make COVID-19 determinations. Readers are welcome to send an email to jgeaney@capehart.com for a request for this list.
--------------------------------
John H. Geaney, Esq., is an Executive Committee Member and a Shareholder in Capehart Scatchard's Workers’ Compensation Group. Mr. Geaney concentrates his practice in the representation of employers, self-insured companies, third-party administrators, and insurance carriers in workers’ compensation, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act. Should you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Mr. Geaney at 856.914.2063 or by e‑mail at jgeaney@capehart.com.
By: Lawrence Hamby (Associate Attorney -Orange Office)
A few years ago, there was a popular book entitled “The 48 Laws of Power” which offered guidance on how to handle difficult situations. One of those laws was to keep your hands clean, which during the current pandemic is sage advice literally and for California employers figuratively as well given the updated statewide industry guidance and reporting guidelines provided from Cal/OSHA related to COVID-19. (See link:https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/coronavirus/Reporting-Requirements-COVID-19.html)
On May 27, 2020, Cal/OSHA provided guidance on updated reporting guidelines that will affect employers big and small in the Golden State. Fortunately, there are not 48 new guidelines to take into account for Cal/OSHA reporting which is now broader than federal OSHA is some respects, but there is enough to keep employers busy as the reopening in California takes effect off with millions more workers expected back on the job soon.
The Difficult Made Easy. With an airborne disease such as COVID-19 it is almost impossible to determine how someone contracted it. Nevertheless, Cal/OSHA by providing reporting and recording guidelines for COVID-19, has made it easier to determine whether to report a potential case or not since it has taken much of the discretion away from the employer.
For instance, California employers going forward will need to record on their Log 300 all COVID-19 illnesses if there is a work-related confirmed case or positive test for COVID-19 of an employee involving any of the following: death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, loss of consciousness or significant injury or illness diagnosed by physician or other licensed healthcare professional.
But, this is where federal OSHA guidance and Cal/OSHA diverge since federal OSHA generally requires a COVID-19 case to be confirmed through testing, whereas Cal/OSHA statesthat even if testing is not available it is recommended to err on the side of recording if one of the six general recording criteria listed above are present, which is broader than Fed/OSHA. So far two million have been tested in California and that number is increasing by an average of 60,000 tests per day.
Previously, for record keeping purposes the employer did not have the burden put on it to determine if a COVID-19 case was industrially related. Now, Cal/OSHA has fine-tuned the decision making process and requires thatvarious factors be considered for the determination. Such as, if there was a known exposure to persons infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 in the workplace or even working in the same area, this could lead to the illness being determined to be work-related. Likewise, if there is a sharing of computers, equipment, or work vehicles which may have exposed a worker to the virus. There will be a presumption by Cal/OSHA of work-related exposure unless an exception in 8 CCR section 14300.5(b)(2) specifically applies.
The more difficult are those in which there was not a known exposure that could trigger determination of work-relatedness such as the amount of contact a worker has with the general public, how stringent the safeguards were at the workplace in wearing masks and enforcing physical distancing and if the worker had contact with someone who exhibited the symptoms of COVID-19, which could include delivery persons or vendors.
The zone of safety is to record and report the above cases, keeping your hand clean with Cal/OSHA.
Not recordable for Cal/OSHA purposes are days away from work solely spent in quarantine with no work-related illness.
Timing Is Everything. Going forward employers must also report to Cal/OSHA immediately any cases of COVID-19 that are work-related and meet the definition of a serious illness that requires inpatient hospitalization for other than medical observation or diagnostic testing. This does not have to be an overnight or 24 hour stay. The report to the nearest Cal/OSHA office must be made within eight hours after the employer knows or should have known of the serious illness or death. Again this goes beyond the current federal OSHA guidelines which allows for reporting within 24 hours.
What if you are a general or special employer or a PEO? The zone of safety may require all involved employers to report any work-related Covid-19 illness to Cal/OSHA.
Don’t Play Doctor. An employee may become sick while at work and display symptoms of COVID-19. What is an employer to do in this situation? According to the Cal/OSHA guidelines for reporting purposes it does not matter if the illness is work-related, it triggers the reporting requirement by the employer so that Cal/OSHA can make the preliminary determination of work relatedness.
The factors that Cal/OSHA will use to make a preliminary work-relatedness determination are whether there are multiple cases in the workplace, the type, extent and duration of contact with others especially the general public, physical distancing and other controls as well as contact with anyone who exhibited symptoms of COVID-19.
This is applicable even if COVID-19 case has not been diagnosed by a licensed health professional as required under the federal OSHA guidelines.
Sometimes there is a reluctance to report a serious illness/injury as work-related because it is assumed that this is an admission of liability. This is not the case and there is no admission of responsibility, it is merely compliance with a mandatory reporting requirement.
One final point is Gov. Newsom’s Executive Order in May regarding the rebuttable presumption for workers compensation benefits and COVID-19. The Order does not alter or affect in any way a California employers reporting and recording obligations under Cal/OSHA regulations.
Good health to you and keep your hands clean!
By: William Davis (Associate Attorney -Santa Rosa)
Everyone has been focused on Governor Newsom’s May 6, 2020 Executive Order creating a temporary rebuttable presumption for AOE/COE and temporary disability benefits in COVID-19 cases. Rightfully so. But while all eyes were on the COVID-19 presumption many may have missed another Executive Order that came out the very next day.
On May 7, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-63-20. Its impact is temporary and will last as long as the California-declared state of emergency, or until lifted by the Governor. The majority of this EO deals with extending some deadlines that have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health concerns. However, buried in the May 8, 2020 EO in paragraph 11 is an order that will impact hearings and trials at the WCAB, particularly where witnesses are required. This EO suspends the rules requiring a witness to be physically present at a hearing if ALL of the following are satisfied:
This is going to have a dramatic impact on the way in which trials at the WCAB are conducted, if they are conducted at all. While the EO allows for hearings to be conducted “by telephone, television, or other electronic means”, it requires that each participant be able to hear and observe exhibits.
How will this play out in practice? The short answer is that most trials will be continued and parties are well advised to try to resolve cases informally where it makes sense.
The WCAB is already conducting hearings other than trials by conference call. It makes sense that this system will be used for trials as it is already in place and does not require any new equipment, software, IT support, or training. This means that the Judge and the respective counsel will be left to assess witness credibility solely by voice, which is a very poor substitute to direct observation of a witness in a court room. Ordinarily, a good attorney or judge will watch closely for visual cues such as whether the witness maintains eye contact, whether they are referring to notes, or even whether someone is whispering an answer in their ear. The trial Judge will be unable to gauge pain behavior, or lack thereof, or even see if they are using any durable medical equipment like a cane, brace, or sling. How are the Judge and other parties to even ensure that the witness is who they say they are? Without video, fraud is definitely a concern. And, as every litigator will tell you, there is a certain gravitas when a witness actually takes the witness stand and possibly has to face either the employer or the Applicant when telling their story. That will be lost. Also lost will be the ability to ensure that witnesses who have not yet testified are excluded while another is testifying. Over the phone, who knows who else is listening in?
Of course, there was a recent case where an out of the county witness was allowed to testify by FaceTime on an iPhone. But, in that case, all the other case participants were in the courtroom. This would be far more difficult to do with the respective attorneys, the Judge, and the court reporter all scattered to different locations.
And, what of the requirement that a participant be able to observe the exhibits? This would include a potentially expansive list of people: the direct parties, witnesses, the Judge, and possibly even the court reporter and interpreter, if applicable. We have already seen at least one judge require that that witnesses must be able to see and review all exhibits prior to giving testimony and that if they do not have the ability to do that, the trial will be continued.
The requirement that members of the public be allowed to observe makes sense for civil and criminal trials. But, it is indeed the rare workers’ compensation trial that has an audience of the general public or press. This section should not pose much of a problem at the WCAB.
More interesting is the requirement that the Americans with Disabilities Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act be satisfied. How is the presiding judge to ensure this in all cases? Suppose a participant is hearing impaired. Does the use of a telephonic captioning device satisfy the requirement that they be able to hear the proceeding? How can the parties effectively utilize a sign language interpreter over the phone? Or, if the participant is visually impaired, how does the presiding judge ensure that they can observe exhibits? If the WCAB cannot accommodate those with hearing or vision impairments, or possibly other impairments, are they being deprived of due process on the basis of a disability?
While some trials will need to go forward out of necessity, we can expect to see the majority of trials being continued into the indefinite future. That, or the WCAB could utilize a video-conferencing platform with appropriate security measures in place. Of course, that means that we’d all have to hope that our going-to-court wardrobe still fits after these months of shelter in place.
A copy of this EO can be found here: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/05/08/governor-newsom-issues-executive-order-on-extending-deadlines-impacted-by-covid-19/
On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 10:00 am (CST) a panel of experienced workers’ compensation defense attorneys representing different states will present a timely and comprehensive webinar entitled: Navigating Post-Injury Wage Earning Capacity in a COVID World. This is the seventh in a series of free webinars sponsored by WorkersCompensation.com in collaboration with the National Workers' Compensation Defense Network at the Center for Education Excellence.
The webinars are free. All you have to do is register.
About the Author
This blog submission was prepared by Mike Fish, an attorney with Fish Nelson & Holden, LLC, a law firm dedicated to representing self-insured employers, insurance carriers, and third party administrators in all matters related to workers’ compensation. Fish Nelson & Holden is a member of the National Workers’ Compensation Defense Network. If you have any questions about this submission or Alabama workers’ compensation in general, please contact Fish by e-mailing him at mfish@fishnelson.com or by calling him directly at 205-332-1448.
Claimant was involved in a work-related injury to her low back in 2008, and for the next five years, she received low back treatment – including injections – paid for by the State of Delaware. She then stopped treating for her low back for a few years, until she returned for more injections and ultimately underwent a lumbar fusion surgery from L4-S1. Drs. Eskander and Cucuzzella both testified on behalf of the claimant that the return to treatment and the surgery were part of the progression of the low back injury from 2008. However, Drs. Rushton and Meyers testified on behalf of the State of Delaware that the 2008 accident had involved a temporary aggravation of her low back condition that then resolved. Citing to the progression of findings on the imaging studies, including entirely new findings of spondylolisthesis for the first time in 2015, Dr. Meyers and Dr. Rushton agreed these findings could not be attributable to a single event from nearly a decade earlier.
The Industrial Accident Board found claimant did not meet her burden to prove that the medical treatment since 2017, to include the 2019 lumbar fusion surgery, was causally related to the work accident. The Board accepted the testimony that the frequent imaging studies showed a natural progression of degenerative lumbar disease, which was wholly consistent with the claimant’s age and gender, and which the experts testified could occur without any trauma. One critical finding was the appearance of spondylolisthesis in 2015, seven years after the work accident; because that was a primary component of Dr. Eskander’s rationale for surgery, the Board agreed that it could not link a finding so distant in time back to the work accident.
Should you have any questions regarding this Decision, please contact Nick Bittner, or any other Attorney in our Workers’ Compensation Department.www.hfddel.com 302-573-4800
Linda Callahan Terry v. State of Delaware, IAB No. 1473826, April 29, 2020.
Legal Update by Attorney Alison Stewart
The Commissioner has extended the suspension of in-person hearings in regular procedure contested cases proceedings through at least September 14, 2020. More information can be foundhere.
The following information and resources will be in effect from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021:
o Ratebook
o The mileage rate will be $0.575 per mile
o The Maximum Weekly Benefit amount for Temporary Total Disability (TTD), Healing Period (HP), Permanent Total Disability (PTD), and death benefits is $1,864.
o The Maximum Weekly Benefit amount for Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) is $1,715.
o The Minimum Weekly Benefit amount for PPD, PTD, and death is $326. This is the figure that serves as the average weekly wage when the average weekly wage calculated is below this amount. It is then necessary to take this figure and apply appropriate exemptions to determine the minimum weekly rate. A minimum rate does not apply for temporary benefits.
o The Questions and Answers Brochure has been updated.
Peddicord Wharton will continue to monitor the ongoing circumstances and update as necessary.
If you'd like to sign up for our e-newsletter, please click here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. This disclosure is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Peddicord Wharton Legal Updates are intended to provide information on current developments in legislation impacting our clients. Readers should not rely solely upon this information as legal advice. Peddicord Wharton attorneys would be pleased to answer any questions you may have about this update. ©2020 Peddicord Wharton. All Rights Reserved.
A recent unpublished case poses an unusual question: can a party to a consent settlement for a percentage of disability award reopen the case to dispute the rate that was agreed to in the settlement? The case is Calero v. Target Corporation, A-2650-18T3 (App. Div. June 10, 2020).
Ms. Calero and Target Corporation agreed to a settlement on August 23, 2016 for a certain percentage of partial permanent disability. Wages were stipulated at that time of $276.17 week with a capped rate of $193.32. That meant that petitioner’s weekly permanency payments were capped at $193.32. The Judge of Compensation and all parties, including the petitioner, signed the final order. Several months later petitioner hired a new lawyer, who filed a motion for reconsideration of the wage which had been stipulated to in the settlement order. The new lawyer argued that the part-time wage should have been reconstructed based on a full time wage. Target opposed the motion for reconsideration.
A hearing took place on September 12, 2018, and petitioner was permitted to testify essentially that the consent award was wrong on her wage. She agreed that she earned $11.50 per hour but she was not seeking a higher percentage of disability. She testified that she was hired on a full-time basis but she “worked the hours that were posted” for her. She maintained that she was always available for 40 hours. After her accident she tried to return to work but was physically unable to do so, and she said her hours continued to be reduced until there was no more work for her. She had not worked anywhere since leaving Target.
On cross examination, petitioner acknowledged that sometimes she barely worked 20 hours per week. But she maintained that most of the time she worked 40 hours per week. Counsel for Target did not offer any documents on her actual hours worked, nor produce any testimony from store employees. It does not appear in the decision whether petitioner was asked why she had in fact agreed to the rate of $193.32 at the time of the 2016 settlement.
On January 16, 2019, the Judge of Compensation issued his decision reconstructing petitioner’s wages to 40 hours per week. The judge applied the law set forth in Katsoris v. S. J. Publ’g Co., 131 N.J. 535 (1993). That case requires proof of a permanent diminution of earnings capacity to reconstruct wages. Given petitioner’s testimony that she mainly worked 40 hours per week and that she could no longer work, the judge held that petitioner had proven a permanent diminution of wage earning capacity. In so finding, the Judge of Compensation relied on a Civil Rule 4:50-1, which allows for judicial relief “which involves mistake, inadvertent surprise or excusable neglect.”
Pursuant to the reconstructed wage, petitioner’s new wage became $460 per week, which allowed for a permanency rate up to $322 per week, substantially higher than the rate in the 2016 order of $193.32 per week.
Target appealed and argued that N.J.S.A. 34:15-27 respecting requests for modifications does not permit a party to reopen a case on stipulated facts like wage and rate. Rather, the rule is designed for requests for modifications in the percentage of disability, or requests for further treatment or further temporary disability benefits. The Appellate Division refused to hear this argument because Target failed to argue this point before the Judge of Compensation. The policy of the appellate division is to only hear arguments on appeal that were raised below. The Appellate Division also noted that Target had conceded that Civil Rule 4:50-1 permitted petitioner to make application to the Judge of Compensation for relief from a mistake.
The Appellate Division commented that even if it had considered Target’s argument that stipulations on wages and rates cannot be the subject of a motion for reconsideration, “… we would find no error because regardless of the Act’s provisions, a judge of compensation has inherent authority to open judgments or orders in the interest of justice and that decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”
Target also argued that it was unfairly required to “incur additional and unforeseen litigation expenses to defend the settlement” which created “a tangible and significant harm.” The Court rejected this argument because “Target did not argue before the judge of compensation or now before us, that had reconstruction been raised by Calero in the settlement discussions that led to the consent order, she would not have been entitled to the application of reconstruction to her wages.” In other words, the Court said that Target never proved petitioner was not entitled to the reconstructed wage. The Court said, “Target offered absolutely no evidence to refute Calero’s proofs or to establish that the alleged substantial prejudice Target suffered outweighed that which Calero experienced by not have her award properly determined.”
This case is unpublished, meaning that other courts are not bound by it, but it raises some very important questions for all cases where petitioners do not regularly work 40-hour per week jobs and may have capped permanency rates. If the petitioner agrees on the record to the wage and rate and testifies as such, is the petitioner still able to hire another lawyer later on to prove that wages should have been reconstructed? How can the respondent protect itself from settlements being overturned on this issue? Can respondent do the same thing and reopen awards if records show that the petitioner in fact had a lower wage than that which was agreed on?
In this particular case, the evidence produced by petitioner for reconstruction of wages was strong and consistent with the Katsoris decision because petitioner argued she had a permanent diminution of earning capacity. There was no evidence offered by Target to dispute the statements petitioner made in court. Rather, Target focused on the unfairness to the company when a petitioner moves to reject the terms of consent order after the order has been entered and is being paid. In fact, It does seem unfair to the employer to negotiate a settlement considering all factors, including the percentage of disability and rate, and then have one part of that settlement remain open for a subsequent attack. What we do not know in this case was whether the overall percentage of disability was negotiated higher in exchange for a capped rate. There is no mention of that in the decision.
Thanks to Rick Rubenstein, Esq. for bringing this case to our attention.
--------------------------------
John H. Geaney, Esq., is an Executive Committee Member and a Shareholder in Capehart Scatchard's Workers’ Compensation Group. Mr. Geaney concentrates his practice in the representation of employers, self-insured companies, third-party administrators, and insurance carriers in workers’ compensation, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act. Should you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Mr. Geaney at 856.914.2063 or by e‑mail at jgeaney@capehart.com.