Is the Labor Market Attachment Forever Over?

As of 2017, a claimant with a permanent partial disability (PPD) who is entitled to awards when they are classified does not have to demonstrate ongoing labor market attachment (LMA). The mentality since the change in 2017 has been that if a claimant is entitled at classification then there is no way to bring up LMA in the future. Prior to the 2017 reform, from December 23, 2010 through February
Continue reading...

New York Court of Appeals Caps the “Additional Compensation” Awarded to Claimants Who Exhaust a Schedule Loss of Use Award

On December 11, 2018, the New York State Court of Appeals decided Matter of Mancini v. Office of Children and Family Services, 2018 N.Y. Slip. Op. 08425, 2018 WL 6492707. At issue was the “additional compensation” entitled to injured workers who exhausted their Schedule of Loss award (SLU) when such award was 50 percent or greater. The claimant argued that the reference to WCL Section 15(3)(w) in Section 15(3)(v) only
Continue reading...

Verbal Threshold Does Not Bar Employers’ Subrogation

Section 40 of the New Jersey workers’ compensation statute allows employers or workers’ compensation carriers to automatically receive reimbursement of benefits paid to an injured worker from a third party tortfeasor – either directly from the tortfeasor, or from an award received by the injured worker in a third party claim. But what happens when an injured worker is barred from suing the third party tortfeasor? Can the employer or
Continue reading...

Recent Trends an “Inextricably Intertwined’ Universe

Oftentimes we see applicants who sustain a specific injury but continue to work thereafter and simultaneously developed a cumulative trauma injury. When evaluating an applicant, the California Labor Code specifically requires a physician to determine what percentage of disability was caused by each industrial injury. This is consistent with the new system of apportionment under SB 899 and the enactment of Labor Code section 4663 and section 4664 which is based
Continue reading...

Maryland’s Second Highest Court Recounts and Applies Critical Zakwieia and Reger Cases in Rendering New Opinion

The 2017 calendar year saw the introduction of two prominent cases addressing the offset afforded under Labor and Employment Section 9-610 and two simple words: “similar benefits.”  Two cases, two words … little to no clarity. Now, 2018 has seen its first opinion from Maryland’s highest court addressing the critical statute governing disability benefits owed to covered employees of governmental units or quasi-public corporations. A more complete analysis of the
Continue reading...

The Law Is Fickle – Maryland Court of Appeals Clarifies Zakwieia, the Phrase “Similar Benefits,” and its Effect on Disability Offsets

Recently, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (CSA) held that the phrase “similar benefits,” found within LE §9-610, examined whether an employee’s ordinary disability benefits provided a similar wage loss benefit to the employee’s workers’ compensation benefits. Zakwieia v. Baltimore County, Board of Education, 231 Md. App. 644 (2017). The practice of law is fast-paced and waits for no one. In Reger v. Washington County Board of Education, et
Continue reading...

You Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat it Too — Maryland Court Interprets Controversial Phrase “Similar Benefits” and its Effect on Disability Pension Offsets

In Zakwieia v. Baltimore County, Board of Education, 231 Md. App. 644 (2017), the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland established the correct interpretation of LE § 9-610 and the controversial phrase “similar benefits.” As a result, the court’s holding provided a basis for the Board of Education of Baltimore County (the Board) to apply ordinary disability retirement benefits owed to the claimant as a credit against the claimant’s workers’
Continue reading...

Is That Offer Bona Fide?

Did you know that a voluntary offer to settle a workers’ compensation claim in New Jersey must meet three specific criteria to comply with state law? The offer must meet the 26-week rule — this means the offer must be made within 26 weeks of the last active treatment or return to work, whichever is later. The letter to the petitioner must explain the weekly payments are meant to be
Continue reading...

Lessons from Daniel

On August 2, 2016, the Appellate Division upheld a Judge of Compensation’s denial of a petitioner’s motion for medical treatment and temporary disability benefits. In upholding the Division’s decision, the Appellate Division agreed that the petitioner had not met his burden of proof that the need for surgery arose from and was causally connected with the same trauma complained of in the original claim petition. Daniel v. United Arlines, No.
Continue reading...