Tag Archive for Lawyer Seattle Workers’ compensation

Jennifer Atkinson | February 17, 2012
No comments

L&I Accepting Public Comments for New Structured Settlement Rules

The Department of Labor & Industries will host four hearings for public comment on regulations concerning structured settlement agreements for workers’ compensation claims.

In 2011, the Washington State Legislature passed several major workers’ compensation reform acts.  Engrossed House Bill 2123 permits workers, employers or the Dept of Labor & Industries to open and negotiate structured settlement agreements to resolve claims for qualified injured workers age 55 and over.

A structured settlement agreement is defined as an agreement between a worker, his or her employer, and L&I that seeks to resolve future non-medical benefits on a claim. For the majority of structured settlements, claims are closed and workers receive a fixed compensation payment in installments as laid out in the agreement.

As explained by Dustin Dailey, Program Manager: “Structured settlement is another option for those injured workers who want to pursue work or retirement goals independent of the system.”

L&I oversees current negotiations with injured workers and State Fund employers who insure through L&I. The agency is not involved with structured settlement agreement proceedings for self-insured employers.

Although a worker may enter into a structured settlement agreement, he or she may still receive prescribed medical treatment for conditions covered by their claim.

The proposed rules concern the implementation of the legislation, and are available under L&I rules at the Structured Settlement website.

Public hearings on the proposed rules will be held at:

  • Vancouver, Feb. 21, 10 a.m., Red Lion at the Quay, 100 Columbia St., 98660
  • Tukwila, Feb. 21, 1 p.m., L&I Tukwila office, 12806 Gateway Dr. S., 98168
  • Tumwater, Feb.22, 10 a.m., L&I Tumwater building, 7273 Linderson Way S.W., 98501
  • Spokane, Feb.22, 10 a.m., Center Place Event Center, 2426 N. Discovery Place, 99216

Written comments will be accepted until 5 p.m., Feb. 24. You can submit written comments to Nancy James at Nancy.James@lni.wa.gov

Fax: 360-902-4960
Mail: Department of Labor & Industries, P.O. Box 44208, Olympia, WA 98504
Hand delivery: L&I, 7273 Linderson Way SW, Tumwater, WA  98501.

Washington’s State Fund is the seventh largest workers’ compensation insurer in the country. It provides insurance to employers and workers at no profit; the money to pay claims comes from premiums and investment income. The State Fund does not get any money from state taxes that go into the state General Fund or from the federal government.

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.

Am I required to attend an Independent Medical Exam?

Appeal a denied L&I claim: 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. The Dept of Labor and Industries has established time limits for appealing rejected injury claims, so we encourage you to consult an Emery Reddy attorney for assistance right away.

Category: Department of Labor and Industries, Independent Medical Examination, L&I, L&I Attorney, Labor and Industries, workers compensation, Workers Compensation Attorney | Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Jennifer Atkinson | April 12, 2011
No comments

Tsunami Aftermath: Disaster, Contract Labor, and Workers’ Comp

They have become known in the press around the world as the “Fukushima 50,” the 50 anonymous workers who venture into the dark, flooded depths of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in the wake of the March earthquake and tsunami that sent the plant’s systems spinning perilously out of control.  Ethicists and labor rights activists wring their hands over the morality of sending in civil workers into what is certain to be a radioactive environments while editorials and politicians praise their bravery and selflessness in the face of disaster.

In the wake of their acts of bravery, labor advocates began to ask important questions about these nuclear workers’ access to health care and workers’ compensation benefits should they suffer any ill effects from their important work.  After all, a startling “88 percent” of Japanese nuclear workers are contract workers with uncertain access to benefits, according to the NYTimes.com.

The New York Times noted these workers are “emblematic of Japan’s two-tiered work force, with an elite class of highly paid employees at top companies and a subclass of laborers who work for less pay, have less security and receive fewer benefits.”  The Times reports that the medical care and benefits for these workers tends to dwindle as you work your way down the ladder from contracted worker, to subcontracted, to even sub-subcontracted.  Essentially “nuclear migrants,” these workers attempt to conceal injuries or exposure to radiation so they can retain their employment.

As the United States re-evaluates its own nuclear power industry, the spotlight has shifted to how the U.S. treats those workers who are asked to put themselves in jeopardy in what is essentially a work situation.  Just today, Scientific American reports that the U.S. nuclear safety regulator is investigating how three nuclear workers in Nebraska were exposed to radiation in a workplace setting in early April. Scientific American writes, “The three workers triggered radiation alarms by incorrectly moving a radioactive tube on April 3. They immediately set the tube down and fled the area.  Nebraska Public Power District, which operates the Cooper Nuclear Station, does not believe the workers were exposed to radiation above regulatory limits, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a release.”  There is no word if these workers were subcontractors or full-time employees.

Of course, if the United States suffered a disaster so severe that it forced not only nuclear workers, but emergency workers to enter extreme environments to save lives, the most obvious, and unfortunate parallel is 9/11.  Chris Bragg wrote as late as 2007 that “many cleanup workers who rushed to help the city in its time of need say they have developed serious physical conditions due to that work: 756 cleanup volunteers and many more paid workers have submitted claims. Many claimants say, however, the Workers’ Compensation Board has been slow in helping them get back on their feet.”  Workers employed by the city, such as firefighters and police officers, go through a tailored compensation process.  But contract workers are at the mercy of the city’s Workers’ Compensation Board, and literally hundreds of articles over the years have detailed their struggle.

Labor & Industries experts will continue to watch the drama unfolding in Japan with an eye to how workers in the U.S. would be treated in similar circumstances.  If anything, the situation reveals the need for greater protection of subcontracted workers of all stripes, especially in terms of workers’ compensation, before a disaster happens and workers must rush into the unknown.  If you have been injured and have questions about your employment status as it relates to workers’ compensation, contact an expert Washington Labor & Industries Attorney.

Category: Employment Discrimination, Uncategorized, Unfair Pay Practices, Worker Injury, Worker Rights, workers compensation | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jennifer Atkinson | April 8, 2011
No comments

The Future of Labor Rights: The Supreme Court, Wal-Mart & Class Action Suits

On Tuesday, March 29, The Supreme Court heard arguments in what might be the largest, most important class action lawsuit in American history.  The top court is not deciding whether the women in the case were indeed victims of large-scale sex discrimination.  At issue is a procedural question: can a large, diverse group of women across the country claim class status? The stakes are quite high: class actions are a legal tool that “makes it much easier for little-guy and little-gal victims of discrimination to sue.”  Workers, Labor Rights Activists, and Workers’ Compensation Attorneys across the country are watching this case carefully to determine if the Supreme Court will uphold Labor Rights or turn over more power to Big Business.

On December 8, 2010 Time.com reported that a “group of women employees is suing Walmart for discrimination, charging the nation’s biggest retailer with underpaying female workers and denying them equal opportunities for promotion.”  Slate.com describes the genesis of the case: “In 2001, Betty Dukes sued Wal-Mart for sex discrimination in a lawsuit filed on behalf of every woman who worked for the company since 1998–roughly 1.5 million women.”  Dukes alleged several grievances against Wal-Mart.  The central claim was lack of equal pay, even for women with greater seniority and better performance reviews.  Also, Dukes claimed the path to promotion was much more difficult and longer than for men and that women were routinely subjected to sexist language.

Beyond the sworn declarations of 120 women who describe their experience of sex-deiscrimination at Wal-Mart, the plaintiffs argue Wal-Mart’s hierarchal structure as directly contributing to the systematic discrimination.  Wal-Mart gives store managers discretion when making promotions and hiring decisions, using such criteria as “teamwork, ethics, integrity, and the ability to get along with others.”  The plaintiffs contend that it was just such subjective criteria decided by mostly male managers that allowed the system to be vulnerable to common sexism and gender stereotypes. This was, after all, the 1990s.  The claim rests on the idea that mostly male managers with little oversight tend to either consciously or unconsciously apply gender stereotypes when it comes to such nebulous concepts as the “ability to get along with others.”  Unfortunately, as many women continue to know today, long-held sexist attitudes about gender roles continue to influence managers in their decision-making process.

It is just this argument that Wal-Mart claims undermines the very status of the class.  As Slate.com notes, “Because Wal-Mart gives managers at the store store level almost complete discretion make personal decisions, there’s nothing that connects the decisions of one Wal-Mart manager to those of another.”  Thus, even if female employees across the country DID suffer sex discrimination, Wal-Mart claims those events were ultimately unconnected.  And while the company acknowledges that such discrimination might have existed, they want the employees to file the claims independently.

Of course, this is where the importance of  the current Supreme Court battle becomes key.  While the decision before the court is narrow (can all these women constitute a class?), the stakes are enormous: can large groups of injured employees band together together to face the legal might and deep pockets of large corporations like Wal-Mart?

When arguments commenced before the Supreme Court on March 29, it soon became clear the Justices had questions in line with Wal-mart’s claims.  The New York Times reports that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said he found the issue of manager discretion as a foundation for proving systematic abuse “internally inconsistent.”  Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative and consistently pro-business members of the court argued “One the one hand, you say the problem is that they were utterly subjective, and on the other hand you say there is strong corporate culture that guides all of this.  Well, which is it?”

The chief worry of the court seemed to be the large number of companies that could be liable if this diverse class was certified. However, as many labor rights activists note, class actions were designed in part to hold companies accountable for abuses on a large scale and that these cases should work as a deterrent to prevent future abuses.  So the court must decide who is more important: corporations or American workers?

We will continue to provide updates on this important case and others.  Workers who believe they have experienced workplace discrimination of any kind should contact an expert Washington Labor and Industries Attorney immediately.

Category: Employment Discrimination, Uncategorized, Unfair Pay Practices, Worker Rights, workers compensation | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jennifer Atkinson | February 3, 2011
No comments

Tucson Tragedy Highlights Workers’ Comp Issues

The tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, members of her staff, and several constituents in Tucson last month has highlighted many issues confronting our country today: questions of gun control, the level of vitriol in political discourse, and, interestingly, many questions of public health services and workers’ compensation.

It is well known that the suspect in the shooting, Jared Lee Loughner, suffered from various mental health issues and many sources in the Arizona Mental Health community commented that he might have received help had he sought it.  While this can never be known, his mental illness has prompted several discussions about the many cuts proposed to health care budgets as states tighten their belts across the country.

The flip side of this issue of access to health care is the fact that Representative Gabrielle Giffords was injured while on the job and her closely scrutinized recovery could be the result of Federal workers’ compensation.

According to Rebecca Shafer, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, “As Congresswoman Giffords and the members of her staff are federal employees, and as they were at an official function for Congresswoman Giffords, she and her staff would be covered for workers compensation by the U.S. Department of Labors Office of Workers Compensation Programs, which administers the Division of Federal Employees Compensation.”  Shafer notes this kind of workers’ compensation is known as FECA – Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.

The next step in Giffords’ recovery will be a lengthy rehabilitation process. On January 21 she was transferred to the Memorial Hermann Medical Center in Houston, Texas and then moved to the Institute for Rehabilitation and Research.   Many experts have assured the public that she is receiving the absolute best care possible for someone with her severe neurological injuries.

The Federal Workers’ Compensation that covers Giffords and her staff is often singled out as a kind of “gold standard” by which other workers’ compensation programs are measured. Still, even Federal workers’ compensation benefits are under greater scrutiny in the current fiscal climate.

Joe Davidson writes in the Washington Post that Senator Susan M. Collins wants “the Government Accountability Office to study the program that provides income to injured federal workers.” Collins argues elderly workers who have no intention of returning to work continue to collect workers’ compensation benefits at taxpayer’s expense.

As Representative Giffords continues to recover under the best medical care available and with the well wishes of the Nation, it seems important to reflect on how her recovery stands in relation to the thousands of other injured workers who struggle to receive the same benefits guaranteed to them under the law.  As states continue to slash entitlement budgets, workers injured in preventable workplace incidents will need to find workers’ compensation attorneys who are abreast of the rapidly changing landscape of workers’ compensation law.  Injured workers should consult a Washington Worker’s Compensation Lawyer at Emery Reddy.

Category: Worker Injury, workers compensation, Workplace Accident | Tags: , , , , , ,
Jennifer Atkinson | October 7, 2010
No comments

Worker Awarded Occupational Disease Benefits for Asbestos Exposure

Debates over the latency period for developing asbestos-related lung disease reemerged in a recent case involving a union worker suffering from an occupational disease.  The claimant—a 74 year-old industrial worker employed by the Delaware City Refinery from 1982 to 2007—developed bilateral interstitial fibrosis from asbestos-related lung disease.  His employer is not contesting the diagnosis itself, but instead raising questions about the latency period and the worker’s risk from the “last injurious exposure,” as well as challenging the degree of permanent impairment.  The ruling on this highly complex workers’ compensation case may have significant implications for the guidelines used to determine disability benefits in future workers’ compensation claims involving asbestos exposure.

Under the care of Dr. Orn Eliasson, the worker was diagnosed with a 54% bilateral pulmonary impairment, which Dr. Eliasson determined using the 5th Edition AMA Guide.  Yet a second physician, Dr. Albert Rizzo, also attended to the same patient, and rated a 24% permanency based on the 6th Edition AMA Guide.

During his July 2010 hearing the claimant was no longer working.  His employers maintained that worker safety measures from 1986 should have provided him with adequate protection from asbestos exposure beyond that date—meaning, according to the logic of their argument—that the employee’s disability benefit quotient should have been based on his average weekly wage in 1986 for determining his present disability award.

The worker’s complicated employment history has made it difficult to determine all the factors involved in his asbestos exposure.  He was last employed by Catalytic in 1982.  The worker then moved to Raytheon, where he worked from 1984 until 1997.  After retiring from Raytheon, the claimant took a part-time position with Delaware City Refinery, Raytheon (from 1997 to 1998), and Washington Group (from 2000 to 2001).  The workers also performed services for several other companies for short spells between 2004 and 2007.

In 2008, the worker started to develop acute respiratory symptoms.  It was at this point that Dr. Eliasson initially diagnosed him with asbestos-related lung disease, and designated a 54% bilateral lung impairment rating based on the AMA Guide 5th edition.  Dr. Eliasson testified that there is a 10 to 20 year-latency period for developing asbestosis following exposure, and so in his medical opinion, the worker’s contributory exposure likely occurred between 1982 and 1997.  However, Dr. Albert Rizzo also examined the injured worker, and in a testimony on behalf of the various employers,  he argued that the harmful exposures were “most likely cumulative, making it difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint when the harm occurred.”   Drawing on the guidelines of the 6th Edition AMA Guide, Dr. Rizzo gave the patient’s bilateral lung impairment a 24% rating.

Ultimately, the Industrial Accident Board deferred to the prevailing doctrine of “the last injurious exposure rule” and upheld Dr. Eliasson’s testimony that the latency period for manifesting asbestos-related disease is 10-20 years.  The Board cited the 1988 case “Lake Forest School District v. DeLong” (WL 77665), arguing that when an injurious exposure is cumulative over the period of successive employment, the final employer is liable for the entire award.  In the case in question, the Board regarded the final year of the claimant’s fulltime employment (which fell between 1996 and 1997) as his last injurious exposure, and disregarded any asbestos exposure from 1997-2007 as outside the latency period.  Under these measures, Raytheon was found liable for the occupational illness.

When it calculated the worker’s award for permanent impairment, the Board declined to base its decision on the 5th Edition AMA Guide, and partially adopted Dr. Rizzo’s rating.  Using the 6th Edition, the Board determined that Dr. Rizzo’s rating corresponded with a Class 3 disability, which falls in the range between 24% to 40% impairment.  Yet the Board found Dr. Rizzo’s rating of 24% “low,” and awarded 30% to each lung.

If you think you may be suffering from asbestos exposure or another work-related injury or illness, please contact a workers’ compensation attorney at Emery Reddy.  We will fight to ensure that you receive the full workers’ compensation benefits to which you are entitled.

Category: workers compensation | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Entries