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.
Joe Wilkerson worked for Boomerang Tube, LLC first as a general laborer and then as a mill operator. He injured his left hand on December 13, 2010 while operating the mill. He returned to work on restricted duty on December 17, 2010. On that evening at work, he reinjured his hand requiring another visit to the emergency room for stitches and antibiotics. He returned to work on December 20, 2010. There was a dispute whether he returned on light duty or full duty initially, but he did eventually return to full duty.
In April 2011 Wilkerson popped a ligament in his right hand and was placed on light duty. He was scheduled for hand surgery on April 27, 2011. In the meantime, he was offered light duty with instructions not to use his injured hand. There was a good deal of dispute regarding the events of April 21, 2011, which is the date Wilkerson was terminated. Wilkerson claimed that his supervisor was trying to make him do activities that were unsafe for him with one hand and Wilkerson allegedly kept asking if he could work in the store room. He said his supervisor refused to allow this.
Boomerang disputed this version and said that even before the shift started, the company planned to have Wilkerson clean offices. The supervisor claimed that he told Wilkerson to go get the cleaning supplies but fifteen minutes later Wilkerson had done nothing. Wilkerson asked his supervisor if he could work in the storeroom. The supervisor said that Wilkerson did not get to choose the type of light duty he would have to perform. Wilkerson said he could not use a mop or a broom, so his supervisor told him to get some Simple Green and a box of rags to wipe down all the restroom and breakroom fixtures. According to the supervisor, he told Wilkerson he was being insubordinate, to which Wilkerson replied that he would leave and go home. Wilkerson refused to do any wiping down work with one hand. The supervisor called his superior, who then gave approval to fire Wilkerson for insubordination.
Wilkerson sued and alleged that Boomerang discriminated against him based on his disability. He further contended that he could have performed the essential functions of his mill operator job with reasonable accommodations. He suggested the following accommodations: 1) receiving assistance from his supervisor; 2) being assigned a trainee; 3) job restructuring or being permitted to wipe down walls and fixtures; 4) receiving a transfer to a vacant position in the storeroom; or 5) being allowed a short leave of absence.
The Court held that plaintiff failed to show that any of these accommodations was reasonable. First, it held that it is unreasonable to require an employer to assign an existing employee to perform essential functions or to hire new employees for this purpose. Second, it held that the company did not have to relieve Wilkerson of the essential functions of his mill operator job. The purpose of reasonable accommodation is to allow the employee to perform his or her job. Third, the Court said that there is no requirement that the company create a new job in the storeroom for Wilkerson or transfer him to a new job since he never proved that such a job was available and that he was qualified for that job. The Court also held that a request for a short leave of absence is not reasonable because it would not help Wilkerson perform the essential job functions. (This aspect of the Court’s ruling is contrary to New Jersey law).
Since Wilkerson could not show that he could perform his job with any reasonable accommodation, the Court dismissed his law suit. This case can be found atWilkerson v. Boomerang Tube, LLC, 2014U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146695 (E.D. Texas October 15, 2014).
----------------
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.
Dr. Marshall was ordered by DWC not to accept new patients nor participate in the comp system as a health care provider. DWC issued a violation order on the basis that he administered improper, unreasonable or medically unnecessary treatment by treating an injured employee for a diagnosis not supported by the medical record.
. . . was fined $1,000 and ordered to complete medical training because according to DWC he failed to provide acceptable health care to an injured employee by improperly utilizing diagnostic tests not supported by the medical record or evidence- based criteria. This is a familiar scenario.
Dallas Medical Center apparently ignored a refund request filed by a carrier, and ended up on December 2, 2014 with an order to pay a $15,000 fine. It is easy to forget that if a carrier makes a refund request against a provider and the provider fails to appeal the request to the carrier, or appeals a refund request and the carrier denies the appeal, the requested refund must be paid. The provider’s only remedy after paying the refund is to take the refund request to dispute resolution for a final determination by the agency– it cannot refuse to pay without risking the ire of the DWC (and a hefty fine).
The Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners took Dr. VanderWerff to a contested case hearing after a complaint was filed with the Board accusing him of providing excessive and unnecessary treatments to a patient. The Board issued an order in the case determining that he had violated the Chiropractic Act by engaging in grossly unprofessional conduct and assessed a fine against him. He couldn’t appeal the Board’s order directly because he missed his deadline to do so. He filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relieve against the Board instead. The Board then filed a plea to dismiss his suit for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court granted the plea and dismissed the lawsuit. The Austin Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, stating that the Board was acting within its statutory authority in issuing its order, and that the lawsuit appeared to be an attempt to create a way to get around his failure to timely file a direct appeal of the agency’s order. The bottom line is that the Board’s order and its finding of grossly unprofessional conduct against Dr. VanderWerff is final. Dr. Eric A. VanderWerff, D.C. v. Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners,WL 7466814 (Tex. App.–Austin)
DWC is reminding all employers without statutory workers’ compensation coverage that there are reporting requirements that apply to them. They must report every year that they elect to opt out of the regulatory system. They also must report work-related fatalities, occupational diseases and on-the-job injuries.
West Star Transportation, Inc. faces a $5.3 million dollar liability judgment. The company did not carry workers’ compensation insurance at the time of the near-fatal fall suffered by one of its workers. This was a case in which the worker sued the company for negligence– a suit which would have been barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Labor Code had there been comp coverage. The 7th District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment both as to the finding of negligence and as to the amount of the verdict. The appeals court found that the company created an unusually precarious work environment and an unreasonable risk of harm to its employees. The Amarillo Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the case last Friday.West Star Transportation, Inc. v. Charles Robison, et al, No. O7-13-00109-CV (7th Dist.).
If you haven’t been able to get through using the numbers you are used to, it is because the field office phone system has been revamped. You can get an updated directory of field office personnel numbers by emailing Hugo Salazar athugo.salazar@tdi.texas.gov. Or contact us and we can send you a copy current as of December 16, 2014.
Surprise. DWC may be on the enforcement war path in regard to BRC exchanges required by Rule 141.4 (b). There has been a rule in effect since 1991 governing when parties to a dispute must exchange pertinent claim information with one another. The rule was tightened up in 2010 but to date has not been strictly enforced. We recently became aware that BROs are being asked to inform DWC of instances when the rule was not followed. Monitoring letters are now being issued. As carrier attorneys are aware, and most likely plaintiff attorneys as well, it can be logistically difficult (and sometimes impossible) to comply with the rule which requires all “pertinent” information in a party’s possession to be sent to DWC and the other parties to a dispute no later than 14 days before a BRC, or not later than 5 days before an expedited BRC. And, as we all know, time flies.
The rule does not expressly provide for punitive consequence to the parties for failure to timely exchange, but it does give the BRO the power to schedule a second BRC if she determines that pertinent necessary information necessary to resolve the dispute was not submitted or exchanged. But beware – a violation of any provision of the Labor Code or DWC rules can be the basis for a monetary penalty or other sanction.
There is a second part to the rule – Rule 141.4(c)(d). This part requires that whenever a party requests a BRC, it must send the opposing party all pertinent informationbefore filing a BRC request with the DWC. The responding party then has an obligation to send all pertinent information in its possession to the other party within 10 working days after receiving the BRC request.
Gov. Terry E. Branstad today appointed Joe Cortese Iowa’s Workers’ Compensation Commissioner. Cortese will replace Michelle “Miki” McGovern, who had been serving as the acting Commissioner since September 2014. A photo of Cortese can be found here.
“
With over thirty years of experience in workers’ compensation, I’m confident Joe Cortese will serve as an independent and fair commissioner,” said Branstad. “I appreciate Miki’s service to the department and the state in the interim.”
The Workers’ Compensation Commissioner is the head of theDivision of Workers’ Compensation which is part of Iowa Workforce Development. Workers’ compensation has the responsibility of administering, regulating, and enforcing the workers’ compensation laws. Though the workers’ compensation commissioner’s office cannot represent the interests of any party, the agency provides information regarding the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law, the rights of the parties, and the procedures the parties can follow to resolve their disputes.
Cortese practices workers’ compensation law at Huber, Book, Cortese & Lanz, where he is a partner. He has been with the firm, formerly Jones, Hoffman & Huber, since 1981. He has been a partner since 1985. He received his Bachelor’s degree from Indiana University and earned his J.D. with honors from Drake Law School. He is a member of the Iowa State Bar Association, Polk County Bar Association, Iowa Association of Workers’ Compensation Attorneys, Iowa Defense Counsel Association, Defense Research Institute and a founding member of the American Academy of ADR Attorneys.
Cortese will assume the role of Commissioner effective February 16, 2015. His appointment is subject to Iowa Senate confirmation.
Call Mark Bosscher or Lee Hook with any questions @ 515-243-2100. We’d be happy to help, whether it be a quick or a complex issue!
