Connecticut Worker's Compensation Benefits

Employees who are injured on the job in Connecticut may pursue benefits through the state's workers' compensation system. The Workers' Compensation Act states that all employees are covered, regardless of full- or part-time status, from the first day of employment. There are several different types of benefits that may apply. In most cases, the primary concern is the provision of medical treatment benefits. If medical treatment benefits are applicable, the employer is responsible for choosing the medical facility, and the employee designates the attending physician. Permanent partial disability benefits may apply in a situation where an employee has suffered partial, permanent loss of the use of one or more body parts as a result of an on-the-job injury. If an employee is able to work after an injury but not able to perform the same type of duties or work for the same number of hours, then he or she may be eligible for temporary partial disability benefits of up to 75 percent of the difference between current earnings and previous earnings. Those who are totally disabled may be eligible for temporary total disability at the rate of 75 percent of previous weekly earnings. Both of these benefits are calculated on an after-tax basis and are subject to other limitations. The Connecticut workers' compensation system may also provide job retraining benefits for employees who are unable to return to their previous jobs. If a previous work injury or illness recurs later, the employee may be eligible for relapse or recurrence benefits during the period of relapse. In some situations, discretionary benefits may be available after all of an employee's PPD benefit has been paid. Discretionary benefits are awarded on a case-by-case basis following an informal hearing. A workers' compensation attorney may be able to provide advice regarding the types of benefits that may apply in a particular work injury case or assist with the filing and pursuit of claims. Source: State of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission , "Information Packet", October 11, 2014 Please call our Hartford Worker's Comp Injury Law firm at 860-523-8783 for a free discussion of your case.

OSHA Proposing Fines in Cell Tower Collapse that Killed 2

BLAINE, Kan. – Following the death of two workers from the collapse of a cell tower they were dismantling March 25, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Wireless Horizon Inc. for two willful and four serious safety violations. OSHA placed the company in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program* following the incident. So far in 2014, 11 workers have lost their lives nationwide in the communication tower industry; and 13 deaths occurred in 2013. No more falling workers. Disturbing trend in communication towers-related workder deaths "Two families have lost their loved ones in a preventable tragedy. No one should ever have to endure that loss. Inspecting and ensuring equipment is in good working order is a common-sense safety procedure that stop injuries and fatalities," said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. "OSHA expects tower owners and operators, such as Wireless Horizon, to protect their workers on job sites in this hazardous industry by increasing training and implementing all known safety precautions. Our nation's growing need for telecommunications should not cost workers their lives." The tower technicians, ages 25 and 38, were using a load-lifting gin pole attached to the side of the tower with a wire rope sling. The sling failed, causing the gin pole to fall and bring the tower down with it. One of the employees was above the gin pole near the top of the tower, and the second employee was approximately 20 feet below the pole. Both workers fell to the ground during the collapse. As the tower fell, it also struck an adjacent tower, causing it to crumble as well. One of the employees had been with the company two months, while the other employee had only been working there for five months when the incident occurred. OSHA's inspection found that the equipment the company provided the workers was in poor repair. The company did not use proper engineering plans to ensure the workers were protected against this type of collapse. OSHA's investigation found that Wireless Horizon failed to inspect the wire rope slings prior to use and provide protection to the slings when rigged over sharp objects. These failures resulted in the issuance of two willful violations. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health. Wireless Horizon also failed to conduct an engineering survey and develop a rigging plan prior to beginning the demolition process. Additionally, the company did not provide the technicians a load chart for the gin pole in use or operator manuals. OSHA issued four serious citations for these violations. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known. OSHA has proposed penalties of $134,400 for the company, based in St. Peters, Missouri. Wireless Horizon employs approximately 60 workers, including four that were present at the Blaine job site on the date of this fatal incident. To view current citations, visit http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/WirelessHorizonInc_964654_0919_14.pdf*. This company has been inspected by OSHA on two previous occasions since 2005, and OSHA issued multiple serious violations both times. OSHA is collaborating with the National Association of Tower Erectors and other industry stakeholders to ensure that every communication tower employer understands their responsibility to protect workers performing this very dangerous work. OSHA has created a Web page targeting the issues surrounding communication tower work to help employees and employers better understand the risks of tower work and how to prevent injuries and fatalities in this industry. Wireless Horizon has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply; request an informal conference with OSHA's area director in Wichita, Kansas, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission. To ask questions; obtain compliance assistance; file a complaint or report workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, the public should call OSHA's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742). Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov. If you or a loved one are victim of a Connecticut Construction Accident please call our office for a free discussion on your rights under our Connecticut Worker's Compensation Laws.

The Perils of Pain Management

Back in the good old days when I first started doing Connecticut worker's comp law, musculoskeletal and low back claims used to be fairly straightforward. One was injured, they saw their orthopedist and either they did a short course of physical therapy or they were a surgical candidate and they had their problem corrected surgically. The claimant would be out of works maybe six to eight weeks and move on. A few months after that, they would get a PPD rating and we could either get that paid or settle the case.

Now, there is a new and unholy place. It is the place of pain management, or as it is called in some places, physiatry. These areas of medicine have become great profit centers for doctors and hospitals. A claimant gets hurt on the job, sees the orthopedist, and if they are deemed to not be a surgical candidate, the doc sends them to an affiliated "pain management" or "physiatry" or "rehabilitative medicine" physician---frequently found in their own practice--- for treatment. This is, in the case of the worker's comp client, the same as being lead into a dead end alley. Now, rather than than a six to eight week stint of recuperation, the client is likely looking at months and months of "pain management"...typically manifested by epidural steroid injections and things of that nature. It creates a cycle of dependency in the mind of the claimant that, in my opinion, does not improve their outcome medically, or bring their legal matter to a head.

Clients are kept at T, or worse, TP, for weeks or more commonly months on end, doing job searches and not doing much else during the 4 week intervals in their visits to pain management. The lawyers dont get reports from these docs, the insurance companies hate paying indemnity for these long periods, and the whole case just gets bogged down. These sojourns have not, in my anecdotal experience improved results. To the contrary---they seem to make claimants more and more anxious.

In this economy, people want to work. When a claimant is told by their pain management doc that they cant work---or more commonly---can only do light duty---it creates a tremendous impediment to that all important concept of closure. People languish in pain management. Their case drags on longer that it should. Their FMLA expires. They lose their job. It is a bad, bad situation.

Back in the old days, the notion of green penicillin was the great elixir. Closure and a decent monetary benefit got the claimant back to work and brought closure to the case. Now, with pain management, the green penicillin is hard to come by and closure takes a lot longer than it should.

OSHA Fines in Lumber Co. fatality Case

PHENIX CITY, Ala. - The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited MDLG, doing business as Phenix Lumber Co., for 53 safety and health violations following the death of one worker and the critical injury of a second at its Phenix City facility. Proposed penalties total $439,400."Phenix Lumber failed to protect its workers from death and serious injury," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. "Employers are legally bound to provide a safe work environment for their employees. This company has repeatedly failed to do so, costing one worker his life and grievously injuring another. This must stop." In March, OSHA inspectors opened a follow-up joint safety and health inspection to verify abatement from a previous visit that identified failure-to-abate violations. Before OSHA could conclude its review, one worker was killed when his head was crushed between a motor being hoisted with a forklift and other equipment. Another worker was seriously injured after he fell approximately 10 feet, breaking his neck, while doing daily maintenance on the debarker in the saw mill.In connection with the fatality, Phenix Lumber has been issued one willful and five serious safety and health citations for permitting a worker to stand under an elevated portion of a powered industrial truck allowing a crushing injury. In relation to the fall resulting in critical injury, the company has been issued one willful, one repeat and one serious safety citation for not providing guardrails and fall protection, and not having a means to disconnect a rotor motor.The follow-up inspection additionally resulted in the company being issued two failure-to-abate, 11 repeat, 21 serious and 10 other-than-serious safety and health citations for other violations. Those violations include failing to provide energy control procedures for equipment and machinery that require more than one lockout device, failing to provide proper electrical enclosures around live conductors and allowing ignitable or combustible dust to accumulate."Phenix Lumber has a history of saying it will correct its safety deficiencies, yet continues to allow a hazardous environment for its workers," said Cindy Coe, regional administrator for OSHA in Atlanta, Ga. "This horrendous situation cannot continue and will not be tolerated."The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and proposed penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The site was inspected by staff from OSHA's area office, 1141 Montlimar Drive, Suite 10006, Mobile, AL 36609; telephone 251-441-6131. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to assure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Georgia Sugar Plant Explosion Results in $6 Million Fine

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration today announced it has resolved litigation with Imperial Sugar Co. stemming from the February 2008 explosion at its Port Wentworth, Ga., plant and subsequently discovered safety and health violations at the company's Gramercy, La., facility."The 2008 explosion took the lives of 14 people and seriously injured dozens of others. Clearly, health and safety must become this company's top priority," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "This agreement requires Imperial Sugar to make extensive changes to its safety practices, and it underscores the importance of proactively addressing workplace safety and health hazards."In the agreement, submitted to Judge Covette Rooney of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Imperial Sugar will pay $4,050,000 in penalties for the 124 violations found at its Port Wentworth plant after the explosion, plus an additional $2 million for the 97 violations found in March 2008 after an inspection of its only other facility, located in Gramercy. The citations alleged, among other safety and health hazards, that the company failed to properly address combustible dust hazards. As part of the settlement, Imperial Sugar agrees that it has corrected all deficiencies at both of its plants or will correct those deficiencies according to a set schedule. Preventative maintenance and housekeeping programs have been established, and Imperial Sugar will identify and map locations where combustible dust may be present at its plants. The company also will conduct regular internal safety inspections and employee training, and hire an independent expert at each plant to ensure that there are adequate avenues of communication on worker safety and health issues within the company. Furthermore, Imperial Sugar has hired and agrees to continue to employ a full-time certified safety professional for the Georgia plant. The company will retain outside consultants to conduct safety audits for a three-year period and evaluate Imperial's programs relating to managing combustible dust hazards, such as housekeeping, preventative maintenance and protective equipment for workers. OSHA will approve all safety, health and organizational experts retained by the company. OSHA will receive current and accurate injury logs whenever requested, and OSHA will be allowed to enter the facility and conduct inspections based on those logs without objection from the company. OSHA will regularly monitor progress and compliance with the agreement and continue to conduct regular inspections of the facility.Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to assure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov/.

Safety Rules For Workers Involved in Top Kill

Talk about closing the barn door after the horses have left. OSHA has promulgated a web page setting forth their efforts in keeping the workers involved in oil spills safe from injury. Read all about it here.

OSHA Proposes Rulemaking To Prevent Injuries From Slips, Trips And Falls

From Comp News Network

Washington, DC (CompNewsNetwork) - The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has announced in a notice of proposed rulemaking published in today's Federal Register its plans to require improved worker protection from tripping, slipping and falling hazards on walking and working surfaces. A public hearing on the revised changes will be held after the public comment period for the NPRM."This proposal addresses workplace hazards that are a leading cause of work related injuries and deaths," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels.The NPRM describes revisions to the Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment standards to help prevent an estimated annual 20 workplace fatalities and more than 3,500 injuries serious enough to cause people to miss work. For example, in July 2009, a worker at a chocolate processing plant was killed after falling from an unguarded work platform."This is a clear and grave example of the human cost incurred when fall protection safeguards are absent, ignored or inadequate," said Michaels. "The loss of a worker's life might have been prevented if the protective measures in these revised standards had been in place and in use."The current walking-working surfaces regulations allow employers to provide outdated and dangerous fall protection equipment such as lanyards and body belts that can result in workers suffering greater injury from falls. Construction and maritime workers already receive safer, more effective fall protection devices such as self-retracting lanyards and ladder safety and rope descent systems, which these proposed revisions would also require for general industry workers.The current walking-working surfaces standards also do not allow OSHA to fine employers who let workers climb certain ladders without fall protection. Under the revised standards, this restriction would be lifted in virtually all industries, allowing OSHA inspectors to fine employers who jeopardize their workers' safety and lives by climbing these ladders without proper fall protection.Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to assure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance.

Independent Contractor: A "Thing Thant Makes Me Go Hmmm."

The distinction between who is an independent contractor and who is an employee in the realm of Connecticut Workers Compensation law is one of those issues that continues to gnaw at me. And, I think, it may be gnawing at the Compensation Review Board as well. In Jordan v. Reindeau & Sons Logging, LLC the CRB took up an appeal in which the trial commissioner concluded the lumberjack that was injured while on the job was an independent contractor as opposed to an employee of the logging company and thus not able to recover for injuries sustained while working.

In reading the CRB's opinion, it is pretty clear that the trial commissioner could have gone either way on this one. I also get the sense the CRB wrestled with what to do. In the end, The CRB deferred and upheld the commissioner's decision. Now I can't say for sure whether or not the trial commissioner concluded as he or she did because of the facts or because the claimant was not represented by one of the more well known comp attorneys while the respondents were, but I think it is a fair question to ponder. There are a lot of intangibles that go into Connecticut workers compensation law practice and this is one of those scenarios that makes me go "hmmmm."

If you are injured on the job in Connecticut and would like a free consultation, feel free to contact my office.

Counstruction Worker Struck By Car in West Hartford

The hartford Courant is reporting that an Austin, Tx man was struck by a vehicle on Asylum Avenue while doing sewer work. When injuries such as this occur, the worker not only has a Connecticut worker's Compensation case but can bring a civil lawsuit as well.

If you are injured on the job, whether as a result of a motor vehicle accident or otherwise, it is imperative you seek experienced worker's compensation counsel as soon as possible.

Independent Contractors

In the case of Rodriguez vs Ed Construction the Compensation Review Board takes up another independent contractor vs. employee case.

I have seen a number of similar fact patterns come through my door in recent years and am concerned that the CRB takes an unusually narrow view of who is and who is not an employee. I worry that I am settling these cases too low because when I speak with my colleagues who are labor lawyers, they seem to be far more fearful of worker's being categorized as employees than our CRB is. This is a troublesome issue. I firmly believe Connecticut workers need adequate protection and I think this whole "independent contractor" business has been expanded too far.

I think it is time another appeal from the CRB is taken.

Who Says Common Sense is Dead?

Certainly not the CRB. Great Result. Read it here.

Biasetti, Again. PTSD. OY!

I really am not quite sure what to make of this.

For whatever reason, the worker's comp gods have not smiled on Officer Biasetti. While my hat goes off to my esteemed colleague J.D. Moran for what is very clearly a job well done, I can't help but feel as a claimant's attorney that this is a tortured result.

I'm shaking my head. I also anticipate further appeals.

Bailout! Might your Worker's Comp Checks Become Taxable?

One lawyer thinks it may be so. One Trillion dollars is a very big number, folks. And both State and Federal goverment will be looking for a way to pay for it all. New taxes including those on worker's compensation checks may very well be subject to income tax in the near future. Stay tuned.

Appellate Court Refuses to Go Postal

In Lopa vs. Brinker International, (12/30/2008) our Appellate Court has given Connecticut worker's comp lawyers yet one more reason to run for the door when we hear the words "United States Postal Service." Not only are Postal worker injury cases not subject to Connecticut worker's compensation law, but now, the Court has instructed that the wages one earns while concurrently employed by the USPS are not included in the average weekly wage of a postal worker injured while performing a second job at an employer other than the Post Office.

Concurrent wage cases fall within the gambit of advanced topics in Connecticut Worker's compensation law. If you have concurrent wages (i.e. a second job) and are injured with either employer, I am happy to help you explain your rights. Feel free to call the firm at any time with your questions.

Lower Gas Prices Translates to Reduced Mileage Reimpursement Rates

The mileage reimbursement rate for all travel expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2009 is now 55.0 cents per mile. This rate change applies to all claimants, regardless of injury date, and coincides with the federal mileage reimbursement rate pursuant to Section 31-312(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Rumour Fueled Assualt on Homosexual Co-Worker provides Lurid fact pattern but predictable result

In a recently released decision, the CRB was called upon to determine whether or not the trial Commissioner had erred when he found that an assault on a homosexual restaurant worker by a fellow employee after- hours was not compensable within the language of the Connecticut Worker's Coimpensation Act. According to the reported facts in Hernandez v. Pizzaria 101 and Family, The claimant was attacked in a parking lot after work one evening by a fellow employee who had evidently heard a rumour that the Claimant was having a homosexual relationship with the attacker. The rumour reportedly got back to the attacker's hometown in Mexico, where the attacker's girlfriend got wind of it and was not surprisingly distressed.

Despite the vivid and somewhat intriguing fact pattern, the case really just stands for the axiomatic proposition in Connecticut worker's compensation law that assaults by co-worker's (no matter how intriguing the circumstances) and any other manner of workplace brawl or tomfoolery are not compensable under our Act.

If you are injured on the job in connecticut, feel free to call our offices for a free, no obligation assessment of your case.

Does He or Doesn't He?

For many of us in the field of Connecticut worker's compensation law, a burning question is often whether or not an employer is insured for worker's compensation coverage. Now, thanks to the hard work of our Commission, and the miracles of technology, we need wonder no more.

On December 22nd, Connecticut rolled out it's online verification system. Now, it is a simple matter of entering your employer's name and the date you were injured to determine whether or not coverage was in effect to protect you.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to contact our offices.

Jim Pomeranz This Year's Pomeranz-O'Brien Award Recipient

Attorney James L. Pomeranz of Glasonbury's Pomeranz Drayton and Stabnick was the recipient of this year's Pomeranz O'Brien Award given by the Worker's Compensation Section of the Connecticut Bar to a member for their outstanding contributions to the field of worker's compensation law. The award was presnted to a standing ovation by those of us attending tonight's Worker's Compensation Section dinner meeting.

The award is named after Jim's father, the late Edward Pomeranz (for whom my own dad worked, many years ago) and the late Ed O'Brien, Sr., a great practitioner in the field of worker's compensation who also served the State as a Compensation Commissioner for many years before his death.

I have known Jim for 21 years in my practice of worker's compensation and can think of no finer recipient for this award. Jim has always been a true gentleman and scholar in my dealings with him, both as a friend and as an adversary. He is a rare breed in the practice of law today---a man who can be taken at his word.

My heartfelt congratulations to "Jimmy P" for this well deserved honor. Jim, you do the bar, and especially those of us practicing in the realm of worker's compensation law proud

CT Worker's Comp Commission Mandates Electronic First Reports Effective 2009

The Text of Commissioner Mastropietro's Memorandum reads as follows:

WCC Electronic Filing of First Reports of Injury Memorandum - September 17, 2008

---

MEMORANDUM NO. 2008-03

TO:	Commissioners, District Administrators, Self-Insureds, Insurance Carriers, Attorneys, Unions, Legal Advisory Panel and Advisory Board Members
FROM:	John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
DATE:	September 17, 2008
RE:	Electronic Filing of First Reports of Injury Mandated

Effective January 1, 2009 the Workers' Compensation Commission is instituting a policy that all First Reports of Injury filed pursuant to § 31-316 must be transmitted electronically to the Chairman's Office.

Prior to the effective date of the above policy, the Workers' Compensation Commission has accepted both electronic and hard copy submissions of First Reports of Injury. However, recognizing that business communications are now largely accomplished through electronic transfers, the Workers' Compensation Commission is mandating that First Reports of Injury be filed electronically with the Chairman's office. We believe this step will help reduce costs and will expedite the forwarding of information that may be necessary for claims processing. This will also allow us to better meet the mandate of Public Act 08-03, the new statute requiring notification of claim filing information.

Access to web based filing is an available alternative for low volume submitters.

In the event you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact this office.

2008 Worker's Comp laws Posted To Internet

The Worker's Comp Commission has provided a link that summarizes the new Connecticut worker's compensation laws that were passed by the General Assembly this past session. If you have any questions about these new laws or how they may affect your claim, feel free to call me for a free no obligation discussion of the present status of your claim.