Earlier this year, the Department of Labor & Industries projected a double-digit increase for workers compensation rates in 2012. Yet Gregoire’s reforms, along with improving trends in L&I claims indicating lower future cost, have resulted in overall workers’ compensation rates remaining flat. L&I projects that the governor’s reform will save $1.1 billion over the next four years.

Judy Schurke, Director of the Department of Labor and Industries, stated that “During the public hearing process we heard that we need to do all we can to reduce or hold the line on the cost of providing a job. That’s why this flat rate is so important.”

While there will be no general rate increase, individual employers may see rates go up or down, depending on their recent claims history, and changes in the frequency and cost of claims in their industry. For example, a 3% increase is slated for the construction industry, while the retail sector will experience a 3% drop.

Gregoire commented that the news “couldn’t come at a better time for Washington businesses and workers. Thanks to the reforms we passed earlier this year and the hard work of our state employees, businesses will have more money to hire and get Washingtonians working again.”

The Employment Security Division originally estimated that February’s unemployment tax reform bill would save businesses more than $300 million in 2011. Less than a year later, the effectiveness of these reforms seems to have surpassed initial expectations:
• Updated estimates indicate that businesses will save more than $500 million in the two-year period — $300 million in 2011 and $207 million in 2012.
• 88% of Washington’s employers will pay lower unemployment tax rates in 2012 than what they pay now.
• The overall average unemployment tax rate will drop by 13%.
• For the 77,338 employers that have had no layoffs in the past four years, the tax rate will decrease by 71%.

Employment Security Commissioner Paul Trause has been unreserved in expressing pride for this outcome: “The stability of our unemployment benefits fund and tax system is the envy of many other states. No other state has been able to reduce taxes and provide temporary benefit increases in this economy.”

New workers’ compensation and unemployment tax rates will both take effect January 2012.

You can find the article on unemployment discrimination here.

If you think you may have been a victim of unemployment discrimination, be sure to contact an attorney who specializes in this area of the law.

You can find expert advice on unemployment discrimination, workers’ compensation, and personal injury claims when you contact an expert Washington workers compensation attorney at Emery Reddy.

According to court documents, Antonio Garcia Rodriguez sustained an injury on February 6, 2004 while doing roofing work for Integrity Contracting at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette.  His claim was initially denied by the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Corporation because LWCC claimed Integrity had failed to pay its premium on the policy.  However, Integrity Contracting was a subcontractor working for Vaughan Roofing & Sheet Metal, making Vaughan Roofing liable as a statutory employer.  Vaughan countered that Rodriguez was on an expired work visa at the time of the accident, thus placing him in that most murky of legal categories: the undocumented worker.

At stake in the case of Vaughan vs. Rodriguez was whether Federal law trumps State Law in the matter of workers’ compensation.  State laws require employers to provide workers’ compensation to injured workers.  But the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit undocumented immigrants.  One way that employers worked around this new law was to make extensive use of subcontractors, as Vaughan Roofing did in the Rodriguez case.

States have dealt with this conflict between State and Federal Law in many ways. California, Maryland, and Florida among others have held that an injured worker’s immigration status is irrelevant to his or hers workers’ compensation claim.  In a California case, the Court of Appeals rejected an employer’s argument that the IRCA preempts California’s labor code that includes undocumented workers in the definition of covered workers.  In fact, the court held there was no true conflict between the IRCA and California law.  The court noted that barring injured undocumented workers from collecting workers’ compensation would encourage “unscrupulous employers to hire unauthorized aliens” to work knowing they would not have to pay any claims to injured workers.

By declining to hear the Vaughan case, the Supreme Court effectively reaffirmed that this important question should be settled at the State level.

When Immigration and Workers’ Compensation laws intersect, injured workers’ may feel overwhelmed by the obstacles to their legal claim.  Injured workers should consult with an expert Washington Workers’ Compensation Attorney who understands the shifting legal landscape.

And yet for a North Carolina health care worker, the offended party was his employer. And the form of betrayal?  Workers’ Compensation Fraud.

The case highlights a troubling trend in the increasing intrusion of employers into the private, even intimate life, of their workers.  The case also reveals that without proper protection from workers’ compensation attorneys, the government is ready to support the employer’s effort to do so.

According to media reports, the plaintiff in the case  worked as a health care technician at a residential health care facility.  After being the victim of a physical struggle with a patient, the plaintiff reported a back injury and began to collect benefits in March 2007.

Court records reveal the employer began to hear reports that there were video postings on the Internet of the plaintiff engaged in sexual acts while he was receiving workers’ compensation benefits. Armed with these rumors, the health care facility hired a private investigator to substantiate these claims.

It seems the investigator did… tracking down a whopping 107 videos. Adding to the already provocative nature of the claims, the investigator discovered the other participant in the videos was a co-worker.   Citing this information, the employer fired the two workers in January 2008 for personal misconduct. While these dismissals themselves bring up a host of troubling questions about the rights workers have to autonomy and intimacy in their private lives, it is the further use of these videos that seem to represent the biggest threats to workers’ rights under workers’ compensation laws.

The Employer had a physician review several videos and testify that the acts depicted should have caused the worker substantial pain and suffering. Although the worker argued that the videos were filmed well before the date of the injury, the government met this claim with skepticism. In November 2007, the full North Carolina Industrial Commission ruled the worker was not credible and denied his claims to worker’s compensation.

In a world where videos of injured workers playing golf or working around the yard are aired by anti-labor  media outlets bent on stirring outrage in the public, the focus on a sensational sex video in this case and the seeming moral approbation attached to the worker by the Commission cannot be dismissed. And yet if we are to eject the puritanical lens through which the Commission no doubt viewed the case, there are even more deeply troubling trends in the erosion of workers’ rights suggested here.

The most obvious problem with the decision is the expectation that a worker must not maintain a functioning private life in the face of a work injury.  In effect, the Employer was arguing that the worker must completely forgo sexual relations to be credible in his claim to worker’s compensation.  And yet, if the worker could no longer have sexual relations with spouse, he or she could claim “loss of consortium” — i.e. the claim that the injury prevents one from having sex with a spouse.

Ultimately what is at stake here is the right for a worker to accept pain to engage in acts of private, human intimacy even while he has the right not to experience pain in the performance of work duties.

Workers that suspect their rights to privacy and autonomy are being tested or violated by employers should immediately contact an experienced Seattle or Washington Labor and Industries Lawyer to protect them.

In a conference announcing the proposed penalties, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis stated that “Accurate workplace injury and illness records are vital tools for identifying hazards and protecting workers’ health and safety. Workers and employers need this information to recognize patterns of injuries and illnesses, and prevent future hazards.”

OSHA’s investigation of Goodman Manufacturing began in March 2010 after the agency received a series of complaints that Goodman had violated OSHA’s regulations by systematically failing to properly document workplace injuries and occupational illnesses. The investigation determined that from January 2008 to March 2010, the company had inaccurately recorded—or simply declined to document altogether—nearly 75 percent of employee injuries and illnesses on its premises.

Workers and regulators have commented that Goodman is highly knowledgeable of OSHA’s recordkeeping procedures, but nevertheless persisted in the decisions and actions resulting in the alleged violations.  Critical information pertaining to the degree and duration of its workers’ injuries and illnesses have been inaccurately documented, including the duration of their time off the job.  Such figures are vital to properly handling and treating injured workers in a workers’ compensation claim.

As OSHA’s Assistant Secretary of Labor, Dr. David Michaels explains, “OSHA takes these violations extremely seriously. We need accurate data to effectively target inspections and resources, and to measure the impact of OSHA’s actions on workplace safety. Employers and workers need to understand how important accurate data are to workplace safety and health.”

According to OSHA regulations, the definition of a willful violation is one that is committed with gross indifference to or intentional neglect for a worker’s safety and health.
Goodman Manufacturing was given 15 business days after the citations were issued to comply with OSHA’s protocol and request a consultation with the agency’s Houston director.  Goodman can also contest the citations with the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

OSHA recently implemented a National Emphasis Program on Recordkeeping to evaluate the accuracy of employer documentation of worker injury and illness.

All workers are urged to immediately report accidents, fatalities or dangerous workplace conditions to OSHA’s toll-free hotline at 800-321-6742. 
 Injured workers should also consult a Washington Workers’ Compensation Lawyer at Emery Reddy.

According to the Globe and Mail, the lawsuit is being filed by Dilshod Marupov, a 22-year-old worker from Uzbekistan who was repairing balconies on a Toronto apartment building when the scaffolding he was using snapped in half, causing him to fall 13 stories to the ground. Both of Marupov’s legs were crushed and his spine was broken, forcing him to stay in the hospital for several months. All other workers who fell from the scaffolding were killed.

Charges filed against Metron Construction of Toronto and Swing N Scaff of Ottawa include failure to ensure that workers were provided with proper devices to protect them from falling, and failure to make certain that the work platform was not overloaded.  “We are suing them because we think they have a duty that they didn’t exercise properly,” said Marupov’s lawyer, William Friedman.

Unfortunately, such workplace accidents are common in Washington as well.  While OSHA reports a declining trend in deaths from workplace accidents, workplace injuries remain at unacceptably high levels.  If you have been seriously injured in a workplace accident, contact a Washington workers’ compensation attorney to help you recover damages including medical costs, lost wages and compensation for pain and suffering.

Of the many concerns that today’s workers face, one of the most troubling is the prospect of losing income during an injury or prolonged illness. Sick or injured workers may suddenly find themselves unable to pay bills, maintain their current standard of living, protect their families from debt, or even keep their homes.

While most Americans carry insurance for possessions like cars and homes, the majority do not carry private disability insurance. At first glance, this makes it easy to see why someone would insure his or her ability to work and earn income—perhaps an individual’s most valuable asset of all.

Yet the issue becomes more difficult when workers try to determine the actual risk of experiencing disability in the course of a working lifetime. Much of the existing data and information is confusing, contradictory, or downright misleading. For example, the National Safety Council estimates that 31 million American workers suffer from a disabling injury each year; but when you look closely at the details, that figure is anything but straightforward. The NSC defines “disability” quite loosely: in a recent interview, NSC spokesperson Amy Williams noted that a disability could be anything that “interferes with normal daily activity one day beyond the day of injury.” She clarified that the condition doesn’t have to be serious enough to prevent an individual from going to work: in fact, it could just mean that someone “twisted their ankle and couldn’t go to Pilates that night.”

Such concessions, however, do not stop insurance companies from playing fast and loose with the statistics, as Ron Lieber argues in his recent article, “The Odds of a Disability are Themselves Odd.” For example, Lieber points out that the Council for Disability Awareness, a consortium of disability insurance companies, draws on the above NSC figures to claim that Americans have an 80% chance of experiencing disability. Framing the discussion in this way invests the prospect of disability with a sense of inevitability—and, consequently, sells insurance policies.

Of course many workers have legitimate reasons for insuring their ability to work and earn an income, even if insurance industry figures are overblown. Yet given the gaps and inconsistencies in available data on an average worker’s odds of experiencing disability, policy-shoppers should be wary. Reputable disability insurance agents may cite more conservative odds—perhaps as low as 50%. But some assessors in major insurance firms like Guardian will admit that those figures themselves are still inflated. During a recent interview, the spokesperson for Guardian’s Berkshire Life unit revealed that her organization’s current information was outdated, and estimated that the odds of disability were probably closer to 30%. Estimates on websites for insurers like Metlife as well as the U.S. Social Security Administration concur with that lower figure.

Yet workers who want to make informed decisions about the actual value and necessity of purchasing disability insurance will need to consider other factors in order to accurately assess their risk. The website for the Council for Disability Awareness provides a “Personal Disability Quotient” tool to estimate the odds for different occupations and lifestyles, but there can be substantial discrepancies in the results when additional outside factors are calculated. White-collar workers have lower rates of injury and illness than their blue-collar counterparts; exaggerated or fraudulent claims skew actuarial data across the board; and in recent years, many professionals facing reduced income and benefits have increasingly turned to using their disability policies as a kind of retirement plan—a trend recently verified by Jack Luff, a researcher with the Society of Actuaries.

Given this ever-shifting constellation of factors, the lifetime disability odds for a given worker could turn out to be in the single-digits—a figure that is hardly suggested by the Council for Disability Awareness, which warns that “Every :01 second another disabling injury occurs. That’s 60 per minute, 85,000+ each day.”

Workers can expect to find more accurate information on the website of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which regularly updates its figures on disability rates and coverage. And of course a number of employees already have some disability coverage through their workplace—although the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that this is only true for about 30% of American workers, and those policies generally cover only a portion of a worker’s income and tend to run out quickly. One should also bear in mind that workers’ compensation and L&I benefits can only be received for injuries that occur on-the-job. Meanwhile, disability benefits through Social Security amount to only a few thousand dollars a month, and the Social Security Administration defines disability very narrowly in evaluating eligibility.

Whatever a worker’s concern, it is clear that one should not solely rely on generalized insurance industry figures and across-the-board warnings. Those who are considering disability coverage face considerable research challenges, but Ron Lieber’s New York Times article has already generated a lively online discussion, and offers a number of additional resources for help. The guidelines in his blog post Questions to Ask Before Buying Disability Insurance may provide workers with an excellent place to start.

For more information, please visit Emery Reddy, PLLC online, or contact us via telephone at (206) 442-9106.

Emery Reddy represents plaintiffs in L&I, employment law and personal injury matters. The firm and its attorneys are trusted advocates for Washington workers who experience job related injuries.

Washington Labor and Industries is in the process of overhauling its website, www.lni.wa.gov. The revisions to the Washington L&I website are the result of user feedback collected over a significant period of time, as well as the efforts of L&I website designers. The new look improves the homepage, streamlines navigation and uses space more efficiently.

The new Washington L&I homepage, the content of which provides details on injured workers’ employment and workers’ compensation rights, provides better visuals and a more welcoming portal to the rest of the L&I site. Online services like the Claim and Account Center simplify the search for injured workers’ rights and remedies, workers’ compensation information, and specific claim information.

Streamlined navigation was a major focus of the L&I site revisions, and the result is a menu that includes headings for Safety, Claims and Insurance, Workplace Rights, and Trades and Licensing. These headings are continuously available. The new L&I site also restricts views to exactly what workers need, eliminating the confusing overload of unnecessary information. An injured worker pursuing a claim will find it easier to review his or her workers’ compensation and Washington L&I rights, understand workers’ comp injury data and statistics, verify workers’ comp coverage, and complete insurance forms. These changes promise to ease the burden on workers who depend on this web tool for information about injury claims.

The new L&I website also makes the most of its available space by consistently packaging information into succinct titles and removing duplication of information, such as contact information and Spanish translation for non-ESL workers.

Of the many revisions to the L&I site, one of the most effective is a new tool that permits a site user (commonly a worker with an L&I covered injury) to maintain a set of links packaged specifically for that worker. For example, a worker who suffered a back injury on the job could build links and bookmarks about necessary claim information, PPD awards related specifically to his or her injury, relevant contact information, and crucial information the worker would need if he or she found it necessary to appeal a claim with the Washington Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals. These links would remain consistently available regardless of the user’s navigation to other locations on the site. A review of the new site is available at http://www.lni.wa.gov/refresh.

Previously, an injured worker in need of advice might navigate the L&I website without access to important links that remained buried in inconspicuous locations. New content and links refer an injured worker directly to information about pursuing claims or appeals for his or her injury.

For more information, please visit Emery Reddy, PLLC online, or contact us via telephone at (206) 442-9106.

Emery Reddy represents plaintiffs in L&I, employment law and personal injury matters.  The firm and its attorneys are trusted advocates for Washington workers who experience job related injuries.