Posts Tagged ‘injured worker’

Workers’ Compensation Boards Debate Disability Guidelines

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

The default rate among self-insured group trusts has produced an alarming level of assessments on small businesses throughout the country. Workers’ compensation boards in states like New York are increasingly deliberating “safety programs” that would lower workers’ compensation costs.

Certain critics—notably the insurance industry itself—have long argued that the injury benefits awarded by state workers’ compensation boards are overinflated, and do not accurately reflect the true costs of a given injury.

While cases of fraud and “presumptions” are significant factors, many claim that the inability of workers’ compensation boards to objectively assess and quantify disability is a much greater problem. For years, many WCBs have not had a working definition of levels of disability or percentage-based schedules of loss. These boards have used arbitrary and every-changing criteria to calculate hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of permanent damages benefits. On top of this there have been the massive cost of trials and testimonies to calculate what WCBs claimed had no definition in the first place.

At the present moment, workers’ compensation boards across the nation are once again involved in debates over the creation and use of more standardized, objective guidelines to evaluate disability. Yet for generations, the workers compensation system has carried on profitably by not having such standards. In short, disputes have been resolved by an arrangement in which worker’s compensation attorneys and insurers must engage in expensive and inefficient disputes until both sides are worn down and settle for a number around 50%, giving the misleading impression of a fair and reasonable outcome.

According to Seattle Workers’ Compensation Attorney Theodore Ronca, this state of affairs has come about through the unique history of workers comp boards.  In New York State, for example, the board has employed a medical advisor since its very first days. The initial advisors established guidelines that were widely accepted and implemented, until they eventually came to be considered obsolete in the 1950s.  After that point, the New York State workers’ compensation board had no working guidelines, and attempts to create new criteria came to a state of deadlock through stubborn opposition on all sides.

The New York Workers’ Compensation Board continued to operate (unofficially) with the older guidelines, and then later with no criteria at all for the next forty years. Responding to pressure in the 1990s, it produced new written guideline for workers’ compensation benefits, but failed to make these binding.  In practice, they were generally ignored when negotiating workers’ compensation claims.

This, of course, raises the question as to whether guidelines would automatically solve anything. As Ronca points out, “unless the guideline can be tested to determine if it can measure what it purports to measure it remains a blank yardstick masquerading as a set of calipers.”  Calculations of workers’ compensation disability, ultimately, result in the final settlements of injury claims, some that currently stand above $200,000 (and rising).  Whether these numbers are too high or too low is a question for which many workers’ compensation boards still have no satisfactory answer.

EEOC Files Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Major Copper Tubing Manufacturer

Sunday, August 29th, 2010

In August the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it had filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against KobeWieland Copper Products, LLC (EEOC v. KobeWieland Copper Products, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-636).  The suit charges that the company refused to hire Joseph Cardwell for a full-time caster position due to a perceived disability.  Cardwell is missing fingers on his left hand; he sustained this injury from a childhood accident, but has successfully coped with the condition ever since.

KobeWieland, LLC produces copper tubing and employs over 500 employees in its two plants in Pine Hall, North Carolina and Wheeling, Illinois.  The manufacturing company hired Cardwell as a caster on September 24, 2008; yet when the new employee arrived for his first day of work, one of its Human Resource Specialists noticed that Cardwell did not have all ten fingers, and the company immediately rescinded its offer of employment.  The HR Specialist claimed that he felt the missing fingers would prevent Cardwell from effectively performing the job.

According to the EEOC complaint, Cardwell clarified that he could still do the job for which he was hired, and asked for the opportunity to demonstrate his ability.  However, the supervisors did not allow him to do so.

The EEOC maintains that Cardwell is fully qualified to perform the duties required by this position, but was denied employment because KobeWieland believes him to be disabled on account of the missing fingers.  Such an assumption of disability would constitute a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Initially, the EEOC attempted to reach a voluntary settlement with KobeWieland; after these attempts failed, the EEOC decided to file a suit with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, seeking back-pay, punitive damages, compensatory damages and rightful-place hiring for Cardwell.  The suit also seeks injunctive and other non-monetary relief.

An EEOC press release included the following remarks from Lynette Barnes, one of the regional attorneys representing Cardwell:

“It’s unfortunate that twenty years after the enactment of the American with Disabilities Act, some employers still react to applicants and employees based on myths, fears and stereotypes about a certain impairment that the individual may have … In this lawsuit, the EEOC alleges that rather than allowing the worker the opportunity to show that he could do the job, the company simply revoked the job offer because of his missing fingers.”

See further details, updates, and press releases on this case at the EEOC press release center.

Healthcare Worker Recovers Medical Benefits After Foreign Blood Splashed on Face and Eyes

Sunday, August 29th, 2010

In accordance with a group of cases that have allowed workers to recover medical benefits after being exposed to blood or other bodily fluids—even when no actual proof of harm has been established—a Kentucky court recently agreed to award $700 in medical benefits to a health care worker who was splashed in the face and eyes with a patient’s blood while flushing an I.V. line (Kentucky Employers Safety Association versus Lexington Diagnostic Center, No. 2008-SC-000671-WC. [May 21, 2009])

The case arose out of a medical fee dispute between the employee and his workers’ compensation insurance carrier.  Immediately following the incident, the worker notified his employer of the accident and received medical attention; at this point, the post-exposure protocol required by OSHA was performed.  The process called for five office visits, including laboratory tests for blood-borne pathogens.  The total cost of medical services amounted to $700.  The employee’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier agreed to pay for the first two visits and a portion of the third, but then refused further compensation.  According to the insurance company, while an exposure to bodily fluids “may have potentially harmful effects,” it does not officially constitute an injury unless and until objective medical findings prove that the exposure has caused a harmful change in the human organism.  The insurer wrote that the insurance policy had paid for one initial test and a follow-up primarily “as a matter of custom and practice and a courtesy to its members.”

According to the official opinion of the Supreme Court of Kentucky, “At issue is whether a healthcare worker who was splattered in the face and eye with blood sustained a compensable injury and, as a consequence, whether the employer or the insurance carrier bears liability for the expense of OSHA-required prophylactic testing.  Affirming a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, the Court of Appeals determined that the worker sustained a compensable injury and, thus, that the carrier was liable.”  In other words, the court determined that being spattered in the face and/or eyes with foreign blood, or with any other potentially infectious bodily fluids, does indeed constitute a traumatic event for the purposes of KRS 342.0011(1); meanwhile, the presence of another person’s blood in the worker’s eyes counts as exposure as defined in 29 CFR 1910.1030(b), which defines a “harmful change” in an individual as—among other things—the introduction of foreign blood or potentially infectious substances into the worker’s body.

Federal Court Ruling Opens Way for FMLA Claims Against Individuals

Sunday, April 18th, 2010

This article by Timothy W. Emery, Esq., a partner with Emery Reddy, PLLC, Attorneys at Law.

A federal district court recently ruled in favor of an employee suing several human resources executives after he was allegedly fired for requesting time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  The ruling may set a precedent in which individuals can be held personally liable for damages allowed through FMLA, including financial loss from a denial of benefits, compensation for back pay, lost wages and attorney fees.

The suit was brought against Cardone Industries and five of its senior HR executives by Dmitry Narodetsky, a tool designer who worked for the company for nearly twelve years before his termination.  His case includes a three-count complaint for violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Several weeks prior to his termination, Narodetsky was diagnosed with a leg injury requiring surgery.  His wife promptly notified Narodetsky’s managers that her husband would need time off for the upcoming operation, and requested that they provide short-term disability for his medical leave.  Following the conversation, three of the company’s HR executives and another manager conducted a forensic examination of Narodetsky’s work computer, uncovering evidence of a pornographic email he allegedly forwarded to a coworker over a year earlier.  Before scheduling the surgery, Narodetsky was called into a meeting attended by the defendants, shown the email he had allegedly forwarded, and fired.

Narodetsky alleges that his employers conducted the computer search solely to find a pretext for terminating his employment so they could avoid granting him leave. He filed a suit alleging that not only the company, but also the five individual defendants interfered with his rights under FMLA and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Attorneys for the defense argued that none of the individual claims were warranted because Narodetsky’s suit did “little more than simply list each such defendant’s title,” and because it failed to include “any facts showing how each defendant was involved in plaintiff’s alleged request for medical leave or the decision to terminate.”

Yet U.S. District Judge Thomas N. O’Neill of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania refused to dismiss Narodetsky’s claim, noting that it went well beyond the narrow characterization of the defense by alleging that each of the individual defendants “participated in the forensic search of [the plaintiff’s] computer with the goal of finding a reason to justify his termination because he had requested FMLA leave.”  O’Neill also maintained that the executives and manager were properly named as defendants since each possessed the authority to fire and played a role in the decision to terminate Narodetsky. “The allegations support an inference that each of the defendants exercised control over the plaintiff in the decision to terminate him,” O’Neill wrote.  The judge also stated that “Given the timing of his termination–falling right on the heels of his request for medical leave–I find that it is reasonable to infer that the defendants terminated his employment for the purpose of interfering with his plan benefits.”

Both the individual defendants and Cardone Industries, Inc. have declined to comment publicly on the ruling.  The case is now proceeding to adjudication in a new trial. See O’Neill’s full opinion in Narodetsky v. Cardone Industries Inc. (pdf)

Citation: Narodetsky v. Cardone Industries et al., Case #09-4734; February 24, 2010, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Companies Evade Taxes by Misclassifying Workers as Independent Contractors

Sunday, February 28th, 2010

This article by Timothy W. Emery, Esq., a partner with Emery Reddy, PLLC, Attorneys at Law.

Companies that cut costs by misclassifying regular employees as “independent contractors” will face tighter regulations and stricter penalties in 2010. The Obama administration has already begun to crack down on companies that misrepresent worker status, recently hiring one hundred additional enforcement agents to effect compliance with the law. Meanwhile, auditors at the IRS have launched an intensified campaign to determine if over 6,000 major companies are using misclassification as a way to cheat on taxes.

Business experts have shown that a growing number of companies wrongfully classify regular workers as “independent contractors” to avoid paying unemployment insurance premiums and Social Security and Medicare taxes on the wages of their employees. Since taxes are not generally paid on the compensation of independent contractors, employers reduce business costs by improperly applying this designation to individuals who should be regarded as regular employees (some of these “contractors” even have company office space and work the same hours as employees).

In a recent New York Times article, Steven Greenhouse indicated that companies wrongfully classify about 3.4 million workers as contractors; the Department of Labor largely corroborates these figures, and estimates that up to 30% of U.S. companies participate in worker misclassification at some level.

The practice has enormous economic repercussions. In Ohio, for example, close to 100,000 misclassified workers have cost the state an estimated $35 million a year in unemployment insurance taxes, and over $100 million in worker’s compensation premiums. With federal and state governments currently struggling under record deficits, businesses can expect a significant increase in penalties for misclassification in the near future. Steven Greenhouse reports that the attorney general of California is currently seeking $4.3 million from a single construction company accused of misclassifying its workers. When implemented on a comprehensive, nation-wide scale, these measures could yield significant results. According to the Obama administration’s 2010 budget estimates, tightened enforcement could translate into $7 billion in revenue over 10 years.

Yet wrongful classification of workers is not merely a matter of concern for government officials; the practice has implications on a more personal level as well, denying basic employment rights to workers. Employers often misrepresent regular W-2 employees as contractors to circumvent minimum wage, overtime and antidiscrimination laws. If workers are designated as contractors and then laid off, they are ineligible for unemployment insurance. Those who are injured on the job cannot receive workers’ compensation benefits.

Prominent members of the business community have responded to the impending crackdown with alarm. When the IRS or state tax authorities identify instances of wrongfully misclassifying workers, companies often face fines and penalties, and can be liable for back-taxes on the reclassified employee. Most employers maintain that worker misclassification is unintentional, resulting from confusion and ambiguity in the legal distinctions between independent contractors and regular employees.

While current developments demonstrate a growing political will to enforce compliance with the law, cases of misclassifying workers have repeatedly emerged in the national spotlight in recent years. Last year the attorneys general of several states threatened to sue FedEx Ground for wrongfully classifying its drivers.  According to allegations by the Teamsters, FedEx has used misclassification to prevent drivers from unionizing (since independent contractors, unlike traditional employees, cannot form unions).

Yet perhaps the most prominent case of misclassification surfaced in 2007, when the private security firm Blackwater USA came under investigation for evading payment of millions of dollars in taxes by classifying workers in Iraq as “independent contractors.” Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, accused Blackwater of engaging in an “illegal tax scheme” that allowed it to avoid an estimated $31 million in employment-related taxes in the last year of its contract alone. The company also attempted to prevent one of its guards from contacting members of Congress after the worker discovered this illegal practice. In a letter to Blackwater’s CEO, Waxman wrote that “it is deplorable that a company that depends on federal tax dollars for over 90 percent of its business would even contemplate forbidding an employee to report corporate wrongdoing to Congress and federal law enforcement officials.” Despite the fact that it routinely misclassifies workers as contractors, Blackwater has been awarded more than $1 billion in government contracts since 2001.

According to guidelines established by the IRS, an employee is defined as anyone who works for an employer when that employer controls what will be done on the job and how those services will be performed. Independent contractors, on the other hand, are defined in a such as way that the payer or employer can only control the result of the work performed, but not the means of accomplishing that result. This distinction is codified in revenue ruling 87-41 (generally referred to as “the twenty factor test”). For a more extensive discussion on properly classifying employees and contractors, see the official guidelines as detailed on the IRS website.