Court Allows TTD After MMI in Loofbourrow Case

In Loofbourrow the Colorado Court of Appeals dealt with a case where the claimant had been placed at MMI (maximum medical improvement)by the authorized medical physician at the time. He returned to work and then worsened. At that point he requested medical treatment and the situation deteriorated as the Respondents denied the claim and did not provide treatment. Even the AWW (average weekly wage) was disputed. At the hearing the judge ruled in favor of the claimant on the issues. He was granted TTD (temporary total disability) benefits even though he had been previously placed at MMI and never contested that. The claim was determined to be compensable and claimant had the right to pick his doctor given the lack of medical treatment. He even won on the AWW issue which seemed to involve reduced hours after the original injury but the judge provided a higher figure. The other side appealed and ICAP (Industrial Claim Appeals Panel) overturned the award of TTD which led to the court decision just issued this week. The court affirmed the judge and reversed ICAP. The Respondents asserted that after being placed at MMI which was never disputed the claimant could not receive TTD. That legal position is a correct one when a claimant has been receiving TTD and reaches MMI. However in this case the court reasoned that after MMI he worsened so the claim remained open to further review. He did not need to seek to reopen and his right to challenge the earlier MMI could not happen until after a FAL (Final Admission of Liability) was filed which had yet to happen. Can you imagine the position this claimant was in? He is hurt at work but seemingly quickly recovers. But his hours are reduced and when he worsens the Respondents decide to fight everything. It is appealed and then appealed again to the court. How long did this person go without benefits as the administrative process went through all the appeals? It appears the last work was in August 2009 so while the court ruled in the claimants favor it took quite a while to obtain benefits and that is assuming there will not be a further appeal.

New Court Case on Medical Benefits

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued a decision yesterday that concerns ongoing medical benefits. In the Hire Quest case we have a rather technical argument that is addressed by the court. It seems an example of how technical arguments get in workers compensation proceedings. In this case the parties went forward at a first hearing which addressed a safety rule violation, credits for paid temporary benefits and the permanent impairment based on a DIME (Division Independent Medical Examination). Before the hearing the issue of permanency became uncontested because the employer/insurer withdrew the opposition to the DIME doctors impairment rating. So the first hearing addressed permanency, temporary and safety rule violation issues but that judge said issues not expressly decided are reserved for future determination. Well claimant later went forward on the issue of ongoing medical treatment needed and the other side said he could not because he never raised the issue at the first hearing and it was waived. They also asserted that the judge reserving issues was not specific enough so that prior hearing closed out the matter. The court decided that the reservation was good enough to preserve the right to address medical benefits after the first hearing so they found in favor of the claimant. Common sense would tell you that medical benefits could be addressed later but the insurer tried to use a prior court decision to say the claimant was required to add the medical issues at the first hearing or else it was waived. This waiver argument is essentially saying address all issues at once or the insurer saves money by alleging too bad so sad you lose (waive) your potential right to further treatment. Even if the judge reserves matters it is not good enough unless it is a specific reservation of a medical issue according to the insurer's view of an early case they were citing. The court disagreed with that interpretation. My view is that workers comp should handle all treatment that is needed for a work injury and not made into a game of technicalities which passes the buck on treatment to others such as the taxpayers. In this case we did have the DIME doctor saying more treatment was needed and I am not sure why it was not made an issue but it could be that there was no dispute made by the insurer until later. To me you have to wonder if the insurer waived objecting to further treatment but anyway the claimant prevailed.

Recent Social Security Rule Hinders Claimants

Just recently effective the Social Security Administration issued SSR 11-1p which affects those appealing a denial after a hearing. The appeal process is an ongoing process and after a hearing you can seek an Appeals Council review and thereafter also can proceed into the federal courts. So you wait for a hearing and if, for some reason, you are denied benefits after a hearing you can pursue further appeals. This takes time but I have seen appeals take several years but finally be successful. But to any claimant this new policy is bad news. For some time if you lost at the hearing and appealed further you often would be told to file another application for benefits with a date after the hearing decision. Then you would have two proceedings going primarily to preserve your right to several months of benefits. The theory is that if you just waited on the appeal and it took 6 months or longer then when you get around to trying all over again you lost those months of waiting. Now the agency has decided not to allow that new application or so it seems on first impression. Imagine having cancer but losing at the hearing on some basis. Then you take a turn for the worst but are told by this policy that any new application has to wait on your appeal or give up your appeal to file a new application. I understand the need not to complicate matters but this policy may result in denials of due process. At least those representing claimants are quite disturbed by it. Here is one view on this and here is another and still another. I would say that this is an area that requires proceeding very carefully. This ruling is new and untested and may well be attacked by those who believe you have a right to file a new application but for now I am just letting you know about it. Time will tell how this is best handled.

Incorrect Offset of Temporary Benefits

The incorrect offset of temporary Workers' Compensation benefits is not the basis for an interlocutory appeal ruled a NJ Appellate Court.

"Appellant Linda Scott appeals from a determination by the Judge of Compensation that her former employer, the County of Bergen (Bergen), is entitled to an offset pursuant to the provisions of N .J.S.A. 34:15-43 and N.J.S.A. 34:15-29, permitting Bergen to avoid the payment of temporary compensation benefits to appellant due to her receipt of an ordinary disability retirement pension from the Police and Firemen's Retirement System (PFRS). We dismiss this appeal as interlocutory because it does not present an issue that should be decided at this time and no application for leave to appeal was filed. R. 2:2-4.

"Leave to appeal was not sought nor does appellant argue such leave should be granted. Scott is receiving the ordinary disability pension; thus, the lack of additional funds from a temporary disability payment does not leave her destitute. This appeal neither presents a situation where the interests of justice require us to rule on the merits nor does it address a legal issue of general importance likely to recur often.

Scott v The County of Bergen, Not Reported in A.3d, 2011 WL 2651957 (N.J.Super.A.D.)

Munoz Court Case on DIME waiver

The Court of Appeals decided yesterday to reverse ICAP and the hearing judge on an issue concerning seeking a DIME. The claimant requested a DIME to review the treating doctors opinion. A DIME is a Division Independent Medical Examination which involves a process to select a doctor to conduct the examination on various medical matters such as MMI and impairment. In Munoz the claimant sought a DIME and requested a specific type of doctor. However that was not provided so he applied for a hearing to address the selection. In the meantime he did not schedule the appointment with the physician in question then set to do the DIME. Instead he filed a second application seeking penalties against the state agency for not staying the matter pending resolution of his hearing issue A hearing judge and ICAP decided he had not stayed the process by filing an application for hearing so he lost by waiver his right to seek the DIME. The claimant argued the application for hearing was sufficient to stay the DIME process. The judge and ICAP decided any stay had to be by law a motion and an application did not do it. They concluded he waived his right by not filing the motion. The appellate court reversed ICAP and determined an application for hearing was good enough to preserve the claimants right to have his DIME concerns addressed before proceeding. This appeal was more complicated then what I have indicated as it was argued the claimant did not even preserve his right to appeal and also the claimant wanted to penalize the state Division of Workers Compensation for not staying the process when he sought a hearing. Usually appeals are not simplistic but the key part of the decision involved a claimants right to stay a DIME process to address his concerns on the selection process. You can read the case here.

The Zolman Case on Bad Faith

The Colorado Court of Appeals just issued the Zolman decision on March 3, 2011 that concerns a civil claim for bad faith against Pinnacol. In this case which arose out of a workers comp case the claimant was upset with Pinnacol denying treatment and denying a change of physicians. A separate lawsuit was started alleging bad faith. This can mean a trial by jury on whether Pinnacol acted in bad faith which involves acting unreasonably. Pinnacol filed a motion for summary judgment against the civil case which was granted. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. So the claimant or rather the plaintiff in the bad faith case lost the case. Summary Judgment is a severe action and historically is not granted if there are questions of fact that should go to a jury. In Zolman there certainly were questions of fact on what is appropriate treatment so you would think the issue of how reasonable Pinnacol was should go to a jury. That is Pinnacol had what it believed were good reasons for denying and the claimant had reasons for saying it was unreasonable. It was a battle of medical experts which is common in this area. Yet the Court decided Pinnacol acted reasonably as a matter of law. Certainly when there are no genuine issues then a summary judgment is appropriate and that is what the case says. What I find puzzling is the use of the concept of "fairly debatable" apparently as a basis for concluding Pinnacol acted reasonably as a matter of law. As I understand it they are saying that the need for treatment was fairly debatable given doctors did side with Pinnacol but to me if there are doctors going the other way even if the dispute could be reasonable you still could go to a jury. On November 10, 2010 another panel of the Court of Appeals in Sanderson did decide that fair debatability alone does not defeat a bad faith claim. You have to wonder if these two cases are reconciliable on the basis to grant or deny summary judgment. In any event Zolman does have the Court deciding that Pinnacol's actions did not rise to the level of bad faith.

Retaliatory Discharge and Temporary Benefits

In a recent Industrial Claim Appeals Panel decision I'll call Gaines there was a retaliatory discharge of an injured worker. The worker was hurt and complaining about the employer not filing a report of injury or providing further medical help. As a result she was taken off the work schedule. Since she was not working and attributed it to the reprisal for her work injury she sought temporary benefits. The hearing judge denied her such benefits saying a reprisal is not a reason for temporary benefits. She appealed and the Panel agreed that the reprisal alone is not a proper statutory basis for temporary benefits but then remanded the case to the hearing judge to address whether her possible restrictions from the injury should entitle her to temporary benefits. Apparently this was not fully looked at by the hearing judge. There was evidence of restrictions but the judge did not adequately address that issue. The reasoning here appears to say that a claimant has to show both a medical problem and loss of wage due to an inability to work or restrictions which impair that ability. A reprisal alone is not enough. However such a reprisal may result in a separate civil claim for retaliatory discharge. The point being made is there is a distinction between a reprisal for having a claim and actual time and wage loss due to an injury. Let's say you fall out of your chair, complain it hurts even if temporary and want to file a claim. Your boss then just takes you off the schedule. So you are fully able to work but in reprisal they give you no hours. Under the Gaines case, as I read it, you'd receive no temporary benefits because you can work and really have no injury. It may be wrongful but your loss of pay is due to reprisal not to the injury. My preference is that this loss due to reprisal or retaliation be able to proceed in the workers comp case rather then in a separate civil case. The reason is that any separate civil case can take many months but the worker is receiving no income directly due to a work injury incident. But my preference is not the law. It takes disability not just reprisal to obtain temporary benefits though in Gaines the remand was to force the hearing judge to decide the disability issue.

The latest data on Social Security appeals and judges

If you are wondering how long it may take to obtain a hearing once you appeal the answer depends on where you live. It is reported that in Colorado Springs the delay to a hearing or disposition is 431 days. While they have been trying for years to speed up the process over a year remains a long time to wait. An attorney may use that time to obtain more reports or assessments but the wait is still too long for many people. In Puerto Rico the wait is shorter. In one office (Mayaguez, PR) the wait is 177 days. Then again in Lansing Michigan you can take 566 days to a disposition. Yet have the claim in Livonia Michigan and the wait is 257 days. Seems not that complicated to smooth all this out but apparently it has been tough to achieve. Waiting too long is much tougher on the disabled so wish they'd get it right. I realize it can be a matter of staffing and numbers but when video hearings are now permitted I fail to see why such a huge variance is tolerated. Last you can look up the latest figures for any judge at the website that compiles this data. You can look up what each judge in Colorado Springs is doing with the cases he or she is handling. What I saw in the latest stats is that 4 out of the 5 judges are somewhat more favorable to claimants and one is statistically denying more claims then issuing favorable or partially favorable decisions. We all know that statistics can be misleading and the types of cases a judge may be involved in can make a difference. The problem is when we discuss the odds we have to say its 50 50 but for some judges your odds are over 60% of obtaining an award. No question the older you are and the more restricted you are the better your chances but each case requires a very individualized approach.

Brown Bagging It on ICAP cases

Once a month an administrative law judge has a brown bag lunch where he reviews cases of interest to those in the Colorado workers comp field. These cases are not readily available to the public although most attorneys in the field have access to the decisions. The Industrial Claim Appeals Office handles a great many appeals from hearings held at the local level. Many such cases never get appealed further and the next stage is to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Judge Eley is well liked and respected by most attorneys in this field and his free Brown Bag Lunch Seminar is well attended. Even if you cannot make it he emails you the materials and an audio of his presentation. Today is the January lunch and from the materials I have already received I note two cases that are exceptionally interesting to me and perhaps to most readers. The first can be called the Wheeler case. The claimant was admittedly permanently and totally disabled and thus entitled to PTD benefits. The issue was how to compute those benefits where they are paid out every two weeks perhaps for life. So the case involved AWW which is average weekly wage. The claimant when hurt at work was earning a very low figure if you look at her actual average wage. Respondents said it was under $75 a week. However vocational evidence was provided which helped show that the rate would be much higher then her actual wage at the time of the accident. While this must all relate to the date of the injury a Judge does have discretion to depart from your actual wage and consider loss of earning capacity. Here the difference was enormous though any calculations still are based upon the law as of the injury date. The judge applied the law as of the date of maximum improvement which was a mistake. The claimant still won big here.
The second case involved a fall at work. Caselaw tells us that not all falls at work are really work injuries entitled to benefits. The claimant in Landes was determined to have a work related tramatic brain injury injury which arose from work activities despite the fact he had amnesia and remembered nothing about the fall. Often Respondents will assert it is the claimants burden to prove his case and falls can come for many reasons. No change in the law from this ICAP decision favorable to the claimant so it is up to the hearing judge to decide on the evidence presented. There was a dissent that essentially said the evidence was speculative either way making the fall unexplained and not compensable.

Over 400 Pages of ALJ Orders

Every now and then the Office of Administrative Courts posts the decisions made by the local ALJ's (Administrative Law Judges). The last month they posted this is for March 2010 but it remains interesting to browse and see what is happening out there. You can search in those decisions for a specific name or word that may be important so you do not have to scroll through hundreds of pages. What has been taken out are the names of the parties. When you read these decisions you can see the attention to detail and the complexity of the analysis. Attorneys also find them useful especially when they are asked to prepare a draft for the judge. Prior recent decisions may provide a starting point to work up the details of your case. Also doctors are often named in the decisions so you can search within those decisions for a doctor to see what he was involved in and how he helped or hurt a claimant's case. All these Orders are only at the first level so they are subject to appeal.

Workers Comp Educational Conference

The Colorado Division of Workers Compensation placed all of the written materials from its first annual educational conference online. You can access it here. The materials are fairly extensive and insightful. Be aware that some of the materials seem to be in outline form because these materials were handed out at an actual conference where the writer also lectured. The materials do presuppose some knowledge of workers compensation but I have to admit they are a valuable resource to anyone in this area. It helps to keep us up to date and to address areas where there may be questions.

The Franz Case

The Franz case was decided on May 13, 2010 by the Court of Appeals. It concerns utilization review which is a process to review a treating physician. It can lead to the replacement of that physician or other consequences that directly impact a claimant. In this case the claimant addressed two points both of which were shot down by the court yet both have some logic to them. First he said the process violated his right to due process because he had no opportunity to discover and present evidence. Second he asserts a potential conflict of interest argument which was not permitted in the process. The court essentially said that there was no violation of Rule 10 which governs the process. The claimant had no right to assert a due process argument since it did not affect a property interest as only retroactive denial of treatment or benefits allows for such a due process argument said the court. It also said the rule was not violated as there was no conflict of interest as defined by the rule. Essentially the claimant could not explore and discover nor could he present evidence on any conflict of interest. In this case the claimant believed there was an inherent conflict because the committee members are closely involved with the insurer and SelectNet a provider organization. This case is disturbing as it deprives the claimant, in the end, of his doctor and he sought review by an ALJ who said he had not overcome the decision by clear and convincing evidence. Let's see now...if you stop the claimant from presenting evidence in the UR proceeding and prevent discovery exactly how can he even try to overcome the decision by clear and convincing evidence? So here Pinnacol was the insurer and it sought to replace the physician and the UR committee involved members of SelectNet which Pinnacol has a pretty cozy relationship with and sure enough they recommend to replace the treating physician for the claimant. Does it seem fundamentally fair? Not to me but the case really narrowly defines due process and the Rule in this matter at least in my opinion.

Appealing in Workers Compensation

In Colorado when a workers comp dispute has not been resolved one of the parties or both of them may seek to proceed on the disputed issues to a hearing. Should that happen an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will likely issue an Order deciding the disputed issue or issues. So if the decision goes against the claimant or in favor of the claimant it does not mean the matter has been resolved. One side or sometimes both sides have a right to appeal. The next stage is ICAP (Industrial Claim Appeals Panel) when an appeal of the decision is sought. From there you can appeal even further to the Court of Appeals and perhaps even to the Colorado Supreme Court. You can read some information on this process by clicking here. In this process there may be good news and bad news. You can win at the hearing and lose at the appeal or even lose at ICAP but then win at the Court of Appeals. Even if it is all good news and you are winning and winning through this process the bad news is that it all takes time. It is not good to be owed money but payment is delayed for many months during an appeal. Let me give an example...the insurer admits you are permanently partially disabled and even begins paying those benefits but the claimant says he is permanently and totally disabled. This dispute may go to a hearing and then an appeal but does the claimant continue to get benefit checks during this process? Not always. The other side may pay but only as much as it admitted for even though it lost at the hearing. It is allowed to appeal and to contend the hearing judge was wrong. This entire process can take over a year or even longer and while statistics tell us the hearing judge is more often affirmed then reversed the delays can be financially tough to handle. Of course there are times the claimant loses and after appeals the judge is reversed. This might mean a lot of back due compensation is due a claimant. Nothing simple or quick about appeals but at times they are necessary to resolve some cases.

New Case- Respondents Cannot Pick and Choose

In this recent case just decided by the Colorado Court of Appeals that we'll call Paint Connection Plus the Respondents appealed the imposition of penalties. What happened is that the claimant's authorized or rating physician noted two injuries. For the shoulder where the claimant had two surgeries he said the claimant was at MMI (maximum medical improvement) with a rating for permanent impairment. However for the cervical area he said the claimant was not at MMI. Respondents alleged that all along they only admitted the shoulder was a work injury so they filed a Final Admission on the rating for the shoulder and denied for the cervical area. The claimant sought penalties and to strike the FAL (Final Admission of Liability). Respondents lost and appealed. At the Court of Appeals the decision was affirmed against the Respondents Paint Connection Plus and its insurer. The court noted that MMI is not divisible and the Final Admisssion was improper. There is no partial MMI and Respondents had other ways to proceed when they questioned the cervical injury. Also the FAL did not attach the worksheets used by the doctor in his shoulder rating and this was a separate ground to strike the FAL. The court ruled there can be no attachment of incomplete reports to a FAL. On penalties it is up to the judge and here they were upheld as Respondents were unreasonable in their actions.

March 2009 Administrative Law Judge decisions

Over at the website for the Office of Administrative Courts they have posted decisions made by various judges in the month of March. Click here for 319 pages of decisions. What you can see from all these decisions is how complicated they can get. You also can see how medically involved they often are with combating medical opinions. The typical format involves findings of fact, followed by conclusions of law and the actual order itself. The names have been removed except for the judges themselves. It should be noted that these are decisions at what we call the local level. If there is an appeal it then can go to the Industrial Claim Appeals Office. Only a few of those cases make it to the appellate courts.

Antartica in Colorado workers comp case!

Decided on March 19, 2009 the Iler case involved a claimant hurt in Antartica. He sought to add the value of his room and board to the wage calculations by comparing it to his room/board in Colorado. So how do you calculate its value in Antartica? The judge felt he couldn't and the claimant appealed. The next level up in an appeal is called an ICAP decision. The Industrial Claim Appeals Panel decides at this stage. In his case they agreed with the Judge. The next appeal is to the Court of Appeals and here the claimant succeeded in getting his case remanded back down to the Judge to assess a reasonable value and add it to the calculations. Read the Iler case here. It is always in the best interests of a claimant to have a high average weekly wage. This figure is often used in determining the amounts of temporary and permanent benefits you are entitled to receive. The most common increase comes when they forget to add your overtime. Also they should add your health coverage if you are going to lose it through your employer. But also as is the case here an employer provides you with room and board. It may be part of your wage package so it too can be added. The Colorado statutory definition of what is your average weekly wage is as follows at 8-40-201:

(19) (a) "Wages" shall be construed to mean the money rate at which the services rendered are recompensed under the contract of hire in force at the time of the injury, either express or implied.

(b) The term "wages" shall include the amount of the employee's cost of continuing the employer's group health insurance plan and, upon termination of the continuation, the employee's cost of conversion to a similar or lesser insurance plan, and gratuities reported to the federal internal revenue service by or for the worker for purposes of filing federal income tax returns and the reasonable value of board, rent, housing, and lodging received from the employer, the reasonable value of which shall be fixed and determined from the facts by the division in each particular case, but shall not include any similar advantage or fringe benefit not specifically enumerated in this subsection (19). If, after the injury, the employer continues to pay any advantage or fringe benefit specifically enumerated in this subsection (19), including the cost of health insurance coverage or the cost of the conversion of such health insurance coverage, such advantage or benefit shall not be included in the determination of the employee's wages so long as the employer continues to make such payment.

(c) No per diem payment shall be considered wages under this subsection (19) unless it is also considered wages for federal income tax purposes.

Odds When You Appeal in Workers Comp

Here is a statistic mentioned at a recent seminar I attended. Going back over ten years anyone who appeals a workers comp decision only has a 17% chance of any success. The odds are very much against you although some appeals are easy to decide against the appealing party. If you are untimely in an appeal it gets dismissed. If you missed a deadline that can mean a dismissal. If you simply disagree with the Judge's weighing of the evidence the odds are a fairly clear your appeal will be dismissed. But it is still sad that so many appeals are a waste of time. Of course we are talking about the rate of dismissals at the next level up from the hearing judge. That level is called ICAP which stands for the Industrial Claim Appeals Panel. Beyond that level is the Court of Appeals and then the Colorado Supreme Court for a few cases. You can lose at the hearing, at the first appeal, at the Court of Appeals and then win at the Supreme Court. So odds mean little if you have a good argument with a solid legal basis. The problem is that few losing cases are that solid and most appeals simply result in a dead end. Being upset at the hearing judge is not enough to appeal...it takes a solid legal argument. So if you are convinced you are right and appeal be aware that 83% of the time appeals are lost at the ICAP level.

What is appealable? Recent Case

We all believe in the right to appeal. It applies to both sides and until we have an infallible local Judge the right to appeal permits us to point out legal errors the Judge made. Appeals, when we do not like the Judge's weighing the evidence are often foolish. The local Judge is the fact finder and higher courts seldom reverse the choices made on the evidence by the Judge. In other words you do not have the right to ask the higher court to try the case all over again. Instead appeals usually involve an assertion the Judge made a legal error that warrants reversal or another hearing. In the case decided today at the Court of Appeals the court pointed out that you cannot appeal a workers comp case when it is not timely. I am posting the decision here as an example of how complicated the workers comp system can be. If you read it you quickly realize that the decision may be proper but it may seem bewildering to the average person. Here the insurer lost the appeal but it also involved a complicated review by the Court of Appeals. It makes you want to say...please make the rules simple and clear so the system moves faster and with less confusion. As lawyers we love to question and challenge and analyze but the parties usually just want to move along matters.

Listen in on an appeal!

You can listen in on the audio of cases set for oral arguments at the Colorado Supreme Court or Court of Appeals. These are real cases where the lawyers argue in front of the appeals judges. As an example I have a link below to several cases heard a few months ago. When you click on the link you should click on the STC case (05CA2340). The case involves apportionment. Insurers love to limit benefits and try to use this legal theory of apportionment to pay for only a portion of benefits. So over the years there have been numerous cases involving apportionment. By way of example insurers may say they only need to pay for half of your surgery if they can establish it should be apportioned. In any event the oral arguments of both sides can be heard in the case noted above. http://www.courts.state.co.us/coa/oraldock/2006/aug2006.htm#7