SB 11-199

While this senate bill 11-199 is awaiting the governor's signature I expect it to become law. There are 4 provisions in the bill worth noting. First, it requires that the insurer pay costs in advance, if requested by the claimant, for an insurer IME or vocational evaluation. This means the cost for the claimant to travel, food and even a hotel must be paid or the claimant can refuse to attend. If they pay and claimant does not attend they can get an offset from future compensation due the claimant. Next, a Final Admission must admit for future recommended treatment by the authorized doctor unless there is a record of a contrary medical opinion. This prevents the insurer from disregarding physician maintenance treatment once the claimant reaches MMI. At times insurers never admit for further treatment even though its need is undisputed. A claimant may think or even be told by the doctor he can get further treatment only to be denied by the insurer and the bill seeks to avoid such a practice. Third,procedurally it corrects a discovery matter by not requiring those represented by an attorney to first ask permission before starting discovery. That extra step (documenting you asked permission) seemed just a waste of time and paper. Last, the bill makes it clear that any lump sum request regardless of the date of injury is not a waiver of the right to seek permanent total benefits. For those readers not familiar with the last issue the history of it is a claimant would receive an admission for permanent partial benefits of a certain amount, let us say $30000.00, and yet feel he was much more disabled so he'd seek permanent total disability benefits. Since by law the admission had to be paid out every other week the claimant sought it in a lump sum. That was deemed a waiver of his claim for permanent total benefits. The poor claimant was stopped in his tracks by accepting the lump sum perhaps just to pay bills and other expenses. You had to be careful to avoid this but the law has been changed. A total disability claim is no longer waived by accepting a lump sum.

Misclassifying Employees as Independent Contractors

The Denver Business Journal is reporting that the U.S. and Colorado are cracking down on businesses that misclassify employees as independent contractors. An independent contractor does not receive unemployment or workers compensation benefits. Most of us who represent claimants will question that an individual is an independent rather then an employee and it is wise to assume any claimant is an employee until the evidence is in. I would imagine that any government does not look with favor on those that try to avoid the requirements set by law. The definitions pertaining to what is an employee are at Colorado Revised Statutes 8-40-202.

Partially Amputated Fingers are Stumps Court Says

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in the Leffler case to uphold the decision to add $4800.00 for partial amputation of the index and middle finger. The claimant had this happen while involved with a sod harvesting machine. This added benefit decision was appealed by the insurer by asserting that benefit only applied to "stumps" and fingers are not "stumps". The case is a simple and quick read but it amazes me that the insurer appealed. The cost to appeal to the Court of Appeals is far more then $4800.00 since it goes from the deciding judge to the Industrial Claim Appeals Panel to the Court. Quite a bit of legal work is devoted to such an appeal. I am not saying the insurer did not have a right to address this issue in an appeal. But it seems impractical and going forward with an appeal to clear up what is a stump for all future cases seems a bit of a waste. After all how many such cases are there? I have always believed that extremity injuries to include hands and fingers can be devastating matters for some people. Imagine if you were a surgeon or piano player or even a carpenter. You can lose your trade and receive a low sum for the injury. So getting a few bucks such as was done in Leffler is better then nothing.

Legislative Advisory 2010

The Colorado Division of Workers Compensation has posted a legislative advisory that briefly reviews the 2010 legislation that is applicable to workers compensation. While the legislative session is over the Division will proceed forward with rule making that may pertain to the recent legislation. Some of this recent legislation is significant. The advisory is just 6 pages so you can easily see for yourself.

SB 10-187 Impacts Claims on or after July 1, 2010

In Senate Bill 10-187 Colorado is making some significant changes in workers compensation claims. For a complete reading just look at the bill but here are the highlights as I see them (effective only for injuries on or after July 1, 2010):

1. If the claimant has to seek a hearing to continue to obtain maintenance medical care then should the other side give in within 20 days from the hearing the claimant can seek his costs to support his effort to continue maintenance care. I see this as trying to stop the other side from objecting to care and forcing the claimant at some expense to try prove his ongoing entitlement but then backing off.
2. Two matters pertain to calculating average weekly wage. One, stops the effort to not count the claimants cost of converting from employer health coverage when he gets medicaid or indigent medical care. A recent case said do not add or adjust for a claimants cost of health insurance when he gets indigent care for free. My view is that the employer health benefit was worth something and should be a wage benefit that is counted in calculating your wage. Second, any wage calculation is to be based on your accident date or based on a judge using his discretion to figure what is appropriate. To me this just codifies what is the law today anyway.
3. Permanent partial disability benefits are no longer to be reduced if you receive Social Security benefits or an employer financed pension/disability plan. I recall one case where the fellow had a reduction of his benefits to zero because of the statutory offset which is corrected by this bill. However these offsets do apply to other benefits such as permanent total disability.
4. A modified job offer may be refused under some circumstances and not result in job termination and asserting the claimant by refusing was responsible for his own termination so his temporary benefits should stop. Personally I wish they had simply repealed the existing law on this which triggers much litigation. In the old days if you were fired when disabled you were often not cut off your temporary benefits as you were still disabled and other work was not that simple to obtain.
5. The caps or limits of top dollar compensation are to be adjusted each year for any claim for injury on or after Jan. 1. 2012.
6. Lastly it is said that there is no waiver of your right to pursue permanent total disability by seeking a lump sum of all the admitted permanent benefits.
Every point raised in the new law was important to correct problems or other interpretations of the law. I'd encourage all to look at the bill as this just represents my simplified take on it.

Workers Comp Penalties are Increased

One statutory change that was signed as law by the governor pertains to penalties. The maximum penalty for a violation of a workers comp law/order is now $1000.00 a day although it can be apportioned or split with half or more to the party and the rest to a fund. Any penalty remains in the discretion of the judge. I would prefer that penalties be imposed more often in workers compensation proceedings where benefits are withheld. I would also prefer that they have some teeth rather then be a minimal amount. If a penalty is meant to punish or teach a lesson it fails to do that if the time and expense of proceeding makes it not wise to proceed. The victim if you will should not be the one punished. That just fails to enforce the intent of the provision. In any event the legislature is increasing the amount that can be imposed as a penalty.

Brochure Now Required in all Workers Comp cases

A new Colorado statute has addressed a disclosure brochure to be provided to all claimants. It is a very concise disclosure on the subject of workers compensation. Seems like an advisory of the claim process and your rights as a claimant. That claim process is indeed quite complicated and the "brochure" seems designed to provide basic information and is required to be provided to you. No amount of disclosures will ever simplify the process but it does give the claimant a heads up on it. The problem with information is not that it is bad but that it can be incomplete. In workers compensation it is not possible to be completely accurate on all matters at all times. There are simply too many cases, too many rules, too many statutes and much more. For example there are tips for physicians and AMA Guides that are outdated but part of the workers comp process. Then as laws change you may come under old law or the new law or both. As recently as in the Nelson case we can see the clash of the old and new. Looking at the brochure I can say it is also not entirely accurate. One example is that it says an Admission will contain your wage but that is not always accurate. My office received a recently filed Admission without any wage figure. The point is this new Brochure can be helpful but also use your common sense and when possible obtain legal representation.

Update on the Status of Colorado Bills

Here is a link to a summary on the status of the various bills which may impact Colorado workers compensation matters. I'll comment in a later post on some of these but for the time being the link really does a very good job of giving us a heads up on the proposed bills some of which have passed and been signed by the governor. It appears for this year the legislative activity is just about over but it may take a several more days to see what is passed and signed by the governor.

Supreme Court Affirms the Nelson case

The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision in the Nelson case. In Nelson the claimant had obtained an advance lump sum of future permanent total benefits and years later sought another advance. The problem posed by the case is that the claimant had exhausted the advance amount earlier and only sought the new advance when the law was changed. The original statutory top dollar advance was $26292 and the statute was changed to allow a $60000 advance. Is the insurer liable for this higher advance when it was not the law back when the claimant was injured? The Supreme Court said yes it was. This decision was not unanimous and 3 judges dissented. But the majority controls. Both sides recognized that the law was not to be applied retroactively but the majority indicated that the law change was procedural so it would apply to anyone applying for a lump sum as of today. Procedural laws are not really changing rights or liabilities as compared to laws which are substantive changes in rights or liabilities. A substantive law change cannot be imposed on the parties covered by an older law. For example if the benefits were increased by a statutory change to 100% wage loss it could not be imposed on the parties later on. The higher wage would be a substantive change. So in this case it seems the majority and dissenters disagreed on whether the law change was procedural or substantive. The majority felt the advance was not extra compensation and the dissent seems to view it as giving the claimant a higher benefit because he receives value sooner then spread out over his lifetime. Mathematically when we do present value analysis there is no real difference. Of course people can die young or outlive expectations so either side may have the advantage here and now we come to another point I have not heard recently. The court said that the law should be liberally construed in favor of the injured worker so it did not split hairs here and ruled in favor of the claimant getting another advance. I posted on the Court of Appeals decision earlier.

Humphrey...a case on what is a statutory employer

On April 1, 2010 the Colorado Court of Appeals decided the Humphrey case. It addressed the question of what is a statutory employer. An important purpose of a statutory employer is to impose responsibility often on the general contractor when a worker for a subcontractor is injured but that subcontractor has no workers compensation insurance. By statute the coverage is then to go through the general contractors insurance because it is deemed by statute the employer. But another impact of this is to prevent any further claims against the general contractor outside of workers compensation. So when the subcontactor does have workers comp and the employee does receive benefits but thinks there was negligence by the general and he tries to sue in a civil proceeding the general can assert it was a statutory employer and can't be sued even if it was negligent. In Humphrey a delivery person for Phil's burritos was hurt while in Whole Foods delivering and stocking Phil's burritos. He received workers compensation through Phil but then sued Whole Foods asserting they were negligent. Whole Foods said it was a statutory employer and can't be sued given he had workers compensation coverage. The court agreed. In a basic sense it is important to be aware that workers compensation law is set up to prevent an injured worker from suing his employer and yet also receiving workers compensation coverage. It is often considered to be an exclusive remedy. Clearly what is a statutory employer can turn on the facts. In Humphrey the court felt the delivery person was stocking and removing outdated burritos from Whole Foods shelves and active enough such that Whole Foods was a statutory employer. In any event it makes for interesting reading.

Average Weekly Wage Desk Aid

The Division of Workers Compensation has what it calls a desk aid to help compute a claimant's average weekly wage. You can view it here. The subject of average weekly wage is an ongoing matter in Colorado. Even now the Supreme Court is to review a case soon (soon means this year).
The importance of the issue cannot be disregarded. Your wage calculations can play a very big role in your compensation benefits. A claimant wants it to be as high as possible and Respondents want it to be as low as possible. The reason is that it can increase your temporary and permanent benefits by a significant amount. As an example let us say you are making $10 an hour and get injured on the job. Does that mean the average wage is $400 for a 40 hour week? Not necessarily. Overtime does count. Having a second job may also count. Getting tips can also be counted (if timely reported to the IRS). Even health benefits from your job may be counted in many circumstances. The Desk Aid for wage calculations is actually more of a guide because a Judge has a great deal of discretion in calculating your average weekly wage. Do not blindly accept the figure provided to you as it may not be the only way to calculate benefits. Many insurers just take the last quarter's earnings (13 weeks) prior to the work injury and this may be way off. A judge may decide there is a different way to calculate it. Back to the example...if the $10 an hour employee worked overtime, or had tips or a second job or health coverage or even if there is another reasonable factor to consider the wage can go up. Even a figure just a few dollars higher can mean thousands more in temporary and permanent benefits. Always do your own calculations and your attorney should review the calculations considering the current caselaw and statutory law. This issue is a subject that is very current and often controversial so do pay attention to it. Look at my last post of March 20, 2010 where it is brought up in a proposed piece of legislation. See also this post where the wage calculation approach is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Proposed SB 10-163

This recently submitted and proposed bill just may pass. It seeks to spruce up certain prior laws of 2009 and have new or old cases have the same procedural laws at least in certain areas. SB 10-163 as currently proposed can be read here. It contains a number of significant matters. For example if the insurer/employer seeks to withdraw an admission and totally contest the claim the proposed law makes it their burden no matter how old the case. In the old days when they did this the Judge would turn to the claimant and say it is your burden so prove your case even though it was admitted and benefits paid for many months. Imagine going to seek an increase in your benefits and being told...well we changed our mind so now you must prove your claim is even valid or compensable. That scary situation was changed in 2009 but the proposed law now applies even to very old cases. Another proposal is to have the law regarding audio recordings by insurer IME's also apply to all cases not just the more recent cases. So if you have an older case but must go to an insurer independent medical exam (no such thing exists in my opinion when one party handpicks the doctor) that doctor may have to comply with the law mandating audio recordings. A couple of other wrinkles seem interesting to me. They require the mortality tables be adjusted yearly or the fed table be used. Mortality is important as the longer your life expectancy the more you seek in a settlement in many cases. Also the proposal seeks to end the game of sending someone a fax or email but using regular mail to notify the other side. It makes such communications more uniform in delivery. It is my belief this proposed bill is broadly supported so it may pass.
UPDATE 3/19/10 : This bill passed and is headed to the Governor for his signature.

Three Proposed Colorado Bills

In 2010 we will see several bills that are introduced which would impact Colorado Workers Compensation if passed. Three that have already been submitted are interesting. The first concerns putting restrictions on surveillance. Many claimants are followed and video is taken as part of an insurers investigation. I remember once walking into an opposing attorneys office and seeing mounds of videotapes. Anyone with a workers comp claim should expect surveillance especially when they go shopping. In any event read this proposed bill on surveillance here. Another proposed bill concerns increasing penalty claims from $500 to as much as $1000 a day. Read this proposed bill on penalties here. Finally another proposed bill seeks to address what it considers conflicts of interest with certain medical doctors. I would assume this is effort to prevent too cozy relationships between some doctors and Respondents. Read this proposed bill here.

Are you an employee or independent contractor?

A recent ICAP (Industrial Claim Appeals panel) decision (WC 4-776-542) went into detail on the difference between being an employee and being an independent contractor. As an employee you have workers compensation benefits for a work related injury or disease as set forth by law. As an independent contractor you likely do not have such benefits. Being told you are an independent contractor does not make you one. In Colorado we have a statute that details certain criteria to be considered by a judge in determining if you are an employee and potentially covered by workers comp or not. The statute is at Colorado Revised Statutes 8-40-202(2)(b) and gives us 9 criteria to consider. Essentially the criteria pertain to the extent of control over the worker in certain ways. In the recent case a carpet cleaning company tried to assert that the worker was an independent contractor when he was injured driving in a company truck to a customer. The vehicle rolled over causing traumatic injuries. The employer defense failed and the worker was deemed an employee. The employer appealed to ICAP and the decision was affirmed in a case which went in depth into the caselaw and statute.

Firefighter cancer on the job case

While there have been no recent court cases involving work injuries in Colorado there is always activity at the ICAP level (Industrial Claim Appeals Panel). Colorado not that long ago passed a law to help firefighters who develop cancer while employed. Trying to prove you contracted cancer from exposure to the toxic substances involved with firefighting had been very difficult. The legislature decided to make it easier on firefighters so they passed a statute that created a presumption that getting certain types of cancer would be considered an occupational disease. In a recent ICAP case the local judge heard the testimony of 3 experts brought in by the insurer and ruled they had overcome the presumption. The firefighter appealed to ICAP and at that level it was decided the insurers' experts were really attacking the premise of the statute itself rather then providing evidence as to how the claimant did not get the disease from his occupational exposure. Not sure if the case will go to the next level but it reminds me of the old arguments made by the tobacco companies to assert that cancer did not come from smoking. There is no link to read the case (ICAP decisions are not published on the web for free) but the statute we are discussing here was mentioned in this prior blog post.

Prehearings and Settlement Conferences

In workers compensation cases prehearings and settlement conferences are incredibly important matters. Click here to visit the Division information page . Also click here. What is important about prehearings is that they often simplify and clarify situations. For example when the other side does not supply requested materials that are discoverable a claimant can file a Motion to Compel. A Prehearing Administrative Law Judge (PALJ) can issue an order requiring compliance. Should anyone fail to comply there can be severe sanctions. Settlement conferences are also valuable ways to resolve cases. After all many cases have disputes or issues which can require a hearing. In particular the extent of a claimants permanent disability is often disputed by the parties. If the dispute goes to a hearing then we must wait for the Order which can be appealed and sometimes all this can take many months. A settlement is a compromise between the parties to obtain closure with a certain outcome. Perhaps the insurer has admitted the claimant is permanently impaired but the amount is subject to more then one interpretation or even the claimant feels he is now permanently and totally disabled. Such matters are very contested and settlements afford the parties a chance to resolve matters and move on with their lives. However it does involve compromise from both sides. What is nice about settlement conferences is that a judge is involved as a mediator to try to work out a compromise. This judge never hears the case at a hearing but is there just to help the parties settle if possible. I've had cases where the settlement efforts did not succeed but usually with some effort they can work. It does require that you accept a compromise. If either side cannot do this to settle a case then we take the longer road of a hearing with likely appeals. Sometimes a settlement is not the way to go or the parties are too far apart in the negotiations so the best answer is to proceed with a hearing. The Rule on Prehearings and Settlement Conferences pertains to these proceedings. Also the statutes are here and here.

Emergency Rule 8 on Recordings

The Division has issued what it calls an emergency rule, effective for claims after August 5, 2009. The new provisions are Rule 8-8 to 8-13 and address when an insurer or employer sends the claimant to its own Independent Medical Examination. Most of us in this field know that when the insurer does this it is seldom an independent objective examination. Insurers tend to pick doctors who favor the insurance side of things. What the rule does is provide details on how this examination must be recorded, how to get a copy and what remedy you have if the recording has confidential information the claimant feels is not to be revealed. All this is because of a new statutory provision just passed by the Colorado legislature. Apparently enough questions have surfaced about insurance oriented doctors asserting what happened during their examination which some feel is untrue. The new law and rule are designed to audio record the examination. Read the new Emergency Rule 8 here. This new rule is a bit complicated so you do need to read it carefully. Clearly after the examination a claimant can receive the first copy even before the insurer. Whoever first requests it must pay for it ($20) but if the insurer wants it they must pay $20 for the first copy for the claimant.

Burden of Proof on modification

I previously posted on some statutory changes but overlooked one which on a second look seems pretty significant. This is stated effective for claims filed on or after August 5, 2009. SB 09-168 amends Colorado Revised Statutes 8-43-201 on hearings to say that the party seeking to modify an admission or order has the burden of proof when it wants to modify it. The best example of this is that under current law the Respondents can come in at a hearing and assert compensability (that is question coverage even after they admitted the claim). Common sense says fine but it should be their burden to prove it after they admitted the original injury was on the job. Well under the current law it was always the claimants burden when the other side raised this issue. Having the burden could mean that in a close call situation the claimant months later could lose his entire case. You can bet Respondents knew this and used it to their advantage at times. Now the law is that it becomes a Respondent burden. A Judge can now be permitted to question the other side's reasons so claimants have a bit more law on their side now. Click here to see the law changes.

Statutory Law Changes for 2009

Here, from the Division of Workers Compensation website is an overview of recent Colorado legislation that affects injured workers, doctors, insurers and even Pinnacol Assurance (the largest quasi-public/private insurer in workers comp in Colorado. Also if you click here you can read the actual legislative changes. I notice that some of these legislative changes are because of cases that went against claimants. For example there is a change to allow psych impairments so as to get over the first statutory cap (yes there are caps limiting benefits). Another avoids the Division IME being attacked for not contacting the authorized treating physician so long as he has resolved certain differences with other doctors. These items have been ways for claimants not to receive adequate benefits. They allowed the other side to attack the claimants Division IME rating by saying the doctor did not contact some other doctor so his opinion could be overcome as not following the procedure in the AMA Guides. In another case the rating was kept under 25% and did not go higher because a psych rating was not added to make the rating higher. The difference can be many thousands of dollars. In any event the legislative changes are, by and large, helpful to claimants. Also Pinnacol has been in the news recently when it disputed the state effort to use some of its excess reserves towards the state budget. As I noted earlier Pinnacol is a hybrid mix of public and private elements. The state is going to seek more control over Pinnacol and some of this recent legislation seems to be setting up to do that. Lastly one change does seem unusual. An insurer IME must now be audio recorded which suggests that some of these IME's were misrepresenting what the claimant was saying during the examination. Regretably such matters often were so hostile that it led to making it mandatory to record the exam. These law changes are effective on different dates as indicated in the overview.

The Nelson case allowing a second lump sum

Decided today by the Colorado Court of Appeals is the Nelson case. This is a case where the claimant was permanently and totally disabled. The law allows a claimant to obtain a lump sum. She did in the amount of $26292.00 which was the amount allowed to be lump summed back when the claimant was originally injured. Since that time the statute was changed to allow for up to $60000.00. So later the claimant sought the $60000 less the $26292 she had already received. She lost on this with the reasoning being she was bound by the law in effect when she was injured. The Court however let the claimant obtain more by deciding the lump sum law was procedural. As such it was not impermissively retroactive or trying to wrongly impose a new law on an old case. The decision makes sense. There was no change in the fact that a permanently and totally disabled person was entitled to lump sum or obtain an advance of the biweekly benefits. It just allowed the claimant to obtain a bigger advance. This is simply a math matter that does not really give a claimant more then he or she is due but just allows for a bigger advance of future money that is owing.