Tag Archive for lawyer seattle wokers comensation

World War II Veteran Receives Disability Benefits After Nearly 60 Years

When Leroy MacKlem lost his veterans disability compensation for an injured hip, gas cost 27 cents per gallon and Harry Truman was President. The year was 1950.

He just learned, however, that he will now get all of it back.

This is a case that reveals both bureaucratic incompetence on the part of the government, and unparalleled perseverance on the part of an 88-year old veteran. Last week, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced that it would end years of litigation and repay Mr. MacKlem – a World War II veteran– for sixty years’ worth of disputed disability compensation, amounting to nearly $400,000.

The case is a sobering reminder of how disputes over disability benefits – particularly for veterans – can sometimes drag on for decades.

Of the 850,000 disability claims currently pending before the department, more than 35,000 (or 4%) are from World War II veterans.

Mike Viterna, the disability attorney representing Mr. MacKlem – as well as president of the National Organization of Veterans Advocates – said that “MacKlem is now the poster boy for all these cases.” He cited the retroactive award as one of the largest he had ever seen.

In 1943, Mr. MacKlem – then 19 – enlisted in the Army and took part in the invasion of Sicily. In the course of his service he developed hip pain so severe that the Army had to evacuate him.

Army doctors attributed his problems to a car accident that dislocated his hip two years earlier, before MacKlem enlisted. The veteran reported no pain during his initial Army physicals, but stated that he developed problems during basic training, and that these worsened in North Africa.

In 1944, MacKlem was given a medical discharge and assigned a 20 percent disability rating for service-related arthritis in the hip, entitling him to disability compensation. But then in 1950, the Veterans Administration terminated his compensation, stating that his pain was part of the “natural progress” of his pre-service injury. Monthly payments of $105 were cancelled at that time.

For reasons that MacKlem’s lawyer could not explain, the veteran decided to appeal in 2006, arguing that the department made a “clear and unmistakable error” in its 1950 decision. A regional office in Detroit initially rejected his argument, but in 2010, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ruled that the department had to reinstate Mr. MacKlem’s award because it had been reversed under that now illegal “extraordinary award procedure.” Even though the department might have had good reason to rescind his compensation in 1950, it would now have to repay him all of it.

In light of his age, MacKlem has asked the department to make a bit more haste with the check.

“I’ve always had the feeling that the government was hoping that I would die so they wouldn’t have to pay,” said MacKlem, a widower without children. Disability payments to veterans with no immediate survivors are returned to the department.

Asked if the Department of Veterans Affairs had dragged out the case to avoid paying Mr. MacKlem, a spokesman replied that the notion was “simply not true.”

If you have experienced disability discrimination or any other form of employment discrimination, contact an employment attorney at Emery Reddy today.

For legal advice and assistance with your L&I claim, contact a Seattle Workers’ Compensation Attorney at Emery Reddy. If the Department of Labor & Industries has required you to complete an Independent Medical Exam, we urge you to consult with an attorney prior to attending the IME. Finally, if your claim has been rejected, it is in your best interest to work with an experienced L&I attorney to appeal denied L&I claims.

Ruling May Expand FMLA Protection

Some companies assume they can ignore the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when it comes to employees who haven’t yet reached their anniversary dates. Yet that belief was directly overturned this month by the Eleventh Circuit, which covers Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.

Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc. addressed the question of whether a first-year employee – in other words, a worker who had not yet reached eligibility for FMLA leave – had job protection when she requested leave that would begin after she became eligible (i.e., her anniversary date).  The appeals court responded in the affirmative, giving protection from termination to a worker who did not technically meet the statute’s definition of an “eligible employee.” This decision makes the Eleventh Circuit the nation’s first to rule on the issue.

 

The plaintiff in Pereda began employment at Brookdale Senior Living Communities in October 2008. Then in June 2009 announced she was pregnant; at this time she also notified her employer that she planned to request FMLA leave after giving birth to her child in late November 2009.  Under the FMLA, an “eligible employee” must be employed for at least 12 months and complete at least 1,250 of service during the previous 12-month period.  The plaintiff had not yet gained the status of an “eligible employee” in June 2009 when she announced her intention to take FMLA leave later that year.  Nor was she an eligible employee in September 2009 when Brookdale managers fired her. But the appeals court re-interpreted the definition of “eligible employee,” reasoning that because the worker would have been an eligible employee at the time she had planned to take leave, she was protected from termination under the FMLA.  The court wrote that concluding otherwise “would violate the purposes for which the FMLA was enacted,” creating “a loophole . . . whereby an employer has total freedom to terminate an employee before she can ever become eligible.”

The Eleventh Circuit Court’s most persuasive reasoning, perhaps, appears when citing a section of FMLA that mandates “employees” (but not necessarily “eligible” employees) to provide their employers with a minimum of 30 days’ notice before taking anticipated leave based on an upcoming birth.  The court determined that an alternate decision in this case would entrap some employees in a lose-lose situation where they had to choose between complying with the notice requirement (but subjecting themselves to risk of retaliatory termination), or waiting for the anniversary date to arrive (but NOT complying with the notice requirement).

The expanded definition of “eligible employee” resulting from this case generates many unanswered questions about the circumstances under which employees are protected under FMLA.  Hunton Employment and Labor Perspectives imagined the following scenarios:

  • What if an 11-month employee says during Thanksgiving week that he is “leaning toward” having surgery on his trick knee after the New Year, likely keeping him on FMLA leave for a month or so?
  • What if a just-hired employee says in January of Year 1 that she and her husband have applied for adoption of a Russian child, a lengthy process that will, if they are approved (a questionable proposition), necessitate their going overseas for a couple of months in the middle of Year 2.  What if the individual had shared this during the pre-hire process?
  • What if an 11-month employee shares that she and her sister are deciding which of them will take three months off from work next year to care for their mother, who is scheduled at that time to move out of a nursing home?  What if the employer elects to terminate the employee the following week, and the mother dies the week after that?

If you or someone you know is the victim of wrongful termination, workplace discrimination, or retaliatory practices, contact a Seattle Employment Attorney for assistance with your case.  Our L&I attorneys also represent employees who seek workers compensation benefits or who need any other assistance with work injury claims through the Department of Labor and Industries.

Read here for more news on FMLA, sick leave and employment law.

OSHA Cites Business for Misreporting Worker Injuries

Last month the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued 83 citations to Goodman Manufacturing Company for deliberately failing to document and improperly documenting workplace injuries and illnesses at their Houston air-conditioning plant.  Fines and penalties have been assessed at $1.2 million.

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.

Workers Struggle to Determine Real Risks of Disability

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

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.

Workers’ Comp Claims Information Navigable Online

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

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.