Maryland Legislature Says “Yea” To Additional Medical Presumptions, “Nay” To Medical Cannabis Reform in Workers’ Compensation Cases

The 2019 Maryland legislative session only produced one substantive law change that impacts the Maryland Workers’ Compensation framework. Additionally, two bills that did not get passed also sent conspicuous messages to practitioners within the bar.

The lone bill implicating Maryland Workers’ Compensation that was passed into Law is House Bill 595, which was approved by Governor Larry Hogan on April 30, 2019. The bill serves as an amendment to Labor & Employment Article Section 9-503 which addresses medical presumptions in workers’ compensation cases. Specifically, the …

Continue Reading

Conflict Over Neutral Risk Work Injuries

Neutral risk injuries have become a contentious topic in Illinois Workers’ Compensation law. In Illinois Senate Bill 12, the legislature attempted to codify recent trends that courts have taken by calling for an analysis of whether an injured worker’s employment quantitatively or qualitatively contributes to a neutral risk to determine a compensable injury. The First District Appellate Court of Illinois applied these factors in Noonan v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission and determined that a neutral risk is compensable where the employee proves he was qualitatively …

Continue Reading

Revisiting Apportionment for Private Sector Injuries in the District of Columbia

On May 2, 2019, the Compensation Review Board (CRB) issued a decision opening the door for apportionment claims in private sector injuries in the District of Columbia. James M. Lyles, Jr. v. Howard University Hospital, (CRB No. 17-036). This decision was in response to a remand from the D.C. Court of Appeals directing the CRB to revisit their interpretation of D.C. Code § 32-1508 (6).

The crux of the analysis centers around the changes to the Act in 1998 which eliminated the Special Fund …

Continue Reading

Use Of 200 Multiple For Part-Time/Intermittent Workers Often Results In Windfall To Claimants

One of the most contentious parts of a claim can be setting the average weekly wage (AWW), as it determines a claimant’s benefit rate for the life of the claim, including entitlement to reduced earnings. Certainly, at times, the method chosen by the Board for setting an AWW can arguably result in an “artificial inflation” of a claimant’s wages. This is particularly true with part-time or sporadic employees, who oftentimes work far less than what one would normally consider to be “part-time” employment.

The method …

Continue Reading

Do it Right or Pay the Price (of Medical Bills)

When an injured worker receives a medically necessary treatment, the employer or insurance carrier is responsible for payment of the treatment when the claim has been accepted or established. See NYCRR section 325-1.25. However, when the treatment is not medically necessary or under the Medical Treatment Guidelines, the carrier can object by filing the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board C-8.1 form (a copy should go to the WCB, the employee, their representative and the health provider). Unfortunately, if the objection is late or improperly …

Continue Reading

Maryland Statutes of Limitation are Not Liberally Construed in Favor of the Claimant

Bonnie Miller v. Jacobs Technology, Inc.[1] , an unreported case handed down from the Court of Special Appeals earlier this year is unequivocal in its holding that the all statutes of limitation in the Workers’ Compensation Act will not be liberally construed in favor of the claimant.

In Bonnie Miller v. Jacobs Technology, Inc., the claimant sustained an accidental injury on September 29, 2011 and filed a claim with the commission in October 2011. The claim was not contested by the employer and an …

Continue Reading

Combating Injured Workers’ IME Reports

Employers, carriers, and third-party administrators are all too familiar with Section 137 of the New York Workers’ Compensation Law and 12 NYCRR Section 300.2, as they govern Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs). Failure to meet or substantially comply with the necessary requirements of Section 137 puts you at risk of having your IME report precluded by a workers compensation law judge. The same holds true for injured workers when they are the party that produces an IME report. As such, it is important to recognize when …

Continue Reading

North Carolina Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Workers’ Compensation Claim After a Fatal Accident in a Company Vehicle

Gregory S. Horner and Alexandra S. Kensinger of Goldberg Segalla recently secured victory before the North Carolina Court of Appeals. In Wright v. Alltech Wiring & Controls, an employee died as a result of a motor vehicle accident which occurred while he was traveling home from work in a company vehicle. His estate argued that he was in the course and scope of his employment because he was driving a company vehicle.

Citing the “going and coming rule,” we argued that the decedent was …

Continue Reading

New York Workers’ Compensation Full Board Issues Decision Regarding WCL Section 15(3)(w) and the Classification Caps

The New York State Workers’ Compensation Board recently issued a decision in Matter of Jacobi Med. Ctr., No. 00825967, 2019 WL 645558 (N.Y. Work. Comp. Bd. Feb. 11, 2019) ruling that a claimant is only entitled to benefits for the duration of the capped period, regardless of surgeries subsequent to the time of classification.

In this case, the claimant was classified pursuant to a February 8, 2012 decision at a 50 percent loss of wage earning capacity, entitling the claimant to 300 weeks of …

Continue Reading

How Does it Work? Incarceration and Workers’ Compensation Benefits

The incarceration of a claimant receiving workers’ compensation benefits can be used as a defense to payment of indemnity benefits based on two similar, but distinct, arguments.

In general, where the carrier has been directed to pay workers compensation indemnity benefits by the New York Workers’ Compensation Board, the carrier may only suspend indemnity benefits unilaterally (without a new direction from the board) in certain circumstances. Per 12 NYCRR Section 300.23(b)(3)(iv), the carrier is allowed to suspend with proof of the claimant’s incarceration upon conviction …

Continue Reading