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.

Distracted Drivers and Workers Compensation

The trend nationally is to prohibit the use of cell phones in motor vehicles. Such a ban would make use of a cellphone while working a deviation from employment and accidents involving cell phone use at work would then be considered a deviation from employment and excluded from workers' compensation coverage,
Citing cell phone usage while driving, the Federal Government is making a major initiative to get workers off cell phone while at work. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced the agenda for the second national Distracted Driving Summit to be held on September 21st , 2010 in Washington, DC.
Building on the success of last year’s summit, Secretary LaHood will convene leading transportation officials, safety advocates, law enforcement, industry representatives, researchers and victims affected by distraction-related crashes to address challenges and identify opportunities for national anti-distracted driving efforts. U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller and U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar will also speak at the summit.
“Thousands of people are killed or injured every year in accidents caused by distracted drivers,” said Secretary LaHood. “One year after our first national Distracted Driving Summit, we will reconvene to take stock of our progress and reassess the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. I look forward to hearing insights from our distinguished panelists and guests, and know that by working together, we will save lives.”
The 2010 Distracted Driving Summit will be live webcast at www.distraction.gov, enabling the participation of people around the country. US employers are urged to set policies to prohibit the use of cell phones at work. "Use a variety of organizational channels to communicate with employees the company's commitment to safety and health and specifically to the nonuse of cell phones and texting. Make it clear to your employees that the expectation is that they will NOT talk or text on their cell phones while driving on company time or in company vehicles. Have employees sign a contract that says they will not violate the organization’s ban on texting and driving."
Many State Laws already ban the use of cell phones while driving. Sample legislation to be used as a starting point for states crafting new laws to prohibit texting while driving has been encouraged.
Making the workplace safer is a major purpose of workers' compensation law. Public policy will certainly support the effort to end distracted driving. The trend to exclude coverage for distracted driving is a signifiant move in the right direction to help workers steer clear of accidents.

Amended Steel Erection standard improves highway construction worker safety

WASHINGTON - The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has added a note to its Steel Erection standard informing employers of certain Federal Highway Administration requirements, to better protect workers and motorists during highway bridge construction.This added information will help prevent tragedies like the 2004 incident in which a 100-foot-long, 40-ton steel bridge girder fell from an overpass under construction in Golden, Colo., crushing an SUV passing underneath and killing the family of three inside. The falling girder could just as easily have struck and killed the construction workers who were building the bridge had they been there at the time; therefore, OSHA is amending its Steel Erection standard to notify employers of FHWA regulations that could save the lives of workers constructing highway bridges.In many cases, the FHWA requires that a Registered Engineer prepare plans for any temporary braces or supports used to stabilize structures such as bridges during highway construction. The National Transportation Safety Board determined the company erecting the bridge contributed to the fatal 2004 incident by failing to follow this requirement.Adding notification of FHWA requirements to the Steel Erection standard is considered a technical amendment because it does not impose any additional compliance burden on employers and therefore does not require a public comment period before going into effect. For additional information see the notice in the Federal Register.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.

The New Comp Books are Here, The New Comp Books are Here"

Bulletin 48 is out---in a delightful shade of blue. Get your copy at any District office.

Reminder to the Wise: There Are Limits on Your Medical Treatment in Accepted Comp Cases

In Caverno vs. Mory's Association the CRB has upheld the Trial Commissioner's denial of disc replacement surgery sought by the claimant. This case involves an accepted low back injury of long standing involving a waitress at the venerable Mory's in New Haven. After what appears to have been significant treatment/evaluations by various orthopedists and neurolgists, the claimant made her way to Dr. Yue at Yale who opined that he felt the claimant was an appropriate candidate for disc replacement surgery. The Commissioner, as is his right, ordered a Commissioner's exam with Dr. Druckemiller, a Hartford neurosugeon.

Dr. Druckemiller rendered an opinion which, following a formal hearing, the trial commissioner relied upon and denied the surgery proposed by Dr. Yue. The CRB has affirmed this denial.

I will refrain from editorializing on this decision and let the reader review the case and draw their own conclusions.

Trouble Behind, Trouble Ahead: Syzmaszek meets Garland-Hall

I'm not quite sure what to make of this opinion. I am quite familiar with the Syzmaszek case having defended the City of Meriden in the matter for a number of years. I know all of the parties involved well, and am certain that further appeals will follow. I also have a case of potentially significant value in my office right now whose fate may be determined by how the dust finally settles in this showdown.

The issue here usually presents itself in only the most serious of comp injuries. A situation where an employee suffers a catastrophic injury and is never able to get off temporary total disability. In other words, he or she is in essence a permanat total. Along the way, however, the worker receives a PPD award which entiles him or her to a specific benefit under CGS Section 31-308a.

In this most recent interpreteation of what to do in such a scenario, the CRB seems to take the view that the 31-308 permanency award is subsumed by the weeks of TT that roll by over that period of time that the permananency would have been due.

I have a problem with this.

As I understand it, 31-308 PPD benefits, as defined in the Statutes, shall be paid "in addition to" any other benefits. How then, can gthe CRB conclude that just because a claimant never got off TT, he or she is no longer entitlked to receive this "addition"?

As I say, I suspect an appeal to the Supreme Court will be coming. In the meantime, I'm not planning on wrting off that case in my office just yet...

CRB Says, "No" To 31-312 lost time payments while on PPD

In Dellarocco vs. Town of Old Saybrook, a Compensation Review Board opinion released January 27, 2009, the CRB has held that a claimant may not collect "lost time" payments pursuant to Section 31-312 while collecting permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits at the same time. This decision is squarely in line with the longstanding notion that one cannot "double dip" and collect two benefits for the same period of lost time.

Hopefully no one is surprised by this one.

Dislike Your Doctor? It Could be Worse

Evidently, not unlike United States Senators, surgeons have taken to carpetbagging. For the record, I have not heard of this happening in Connecticut, however I cannot say that it hasnt occurred. Best advice: Stick with a well known and respected local physician, preferably one well versed in Connecticut worker's compensation law.

If your employer is denying you medical care, or access to a physician of your choice, contact our office for assistance.

Costs Increase Approved For certain WC Claim case exoenses

WCC Revised Professional Guide Memorandum - September 17, 2008

---

MEMORANDUM NO. 2008-05

TO:	Commissioners, District Administrators, Workers' Compensation Advisory Board, Legal Advisory Panel, Medical Advisory Panel, Medical Practitioners, Self-Insureds, Insurance Carriers, Attorneys, and Unions
FROM:	John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
DATE:	September 17, 2008
RE:	REVISED Professional Guide for Attorneys, Physicians and Other Health Care Practitioners; Guidelines for Cooperation

By memorandum dated September 27, 2002, the Workers' Compensation Commission adopted and issued the Professional Guide for Attorneys, Physicians and Other Health Care Practitioners; Guidelines for Cooperation.

The following revisions to the guidelines are effective October 1, 2008:

1. Where appropriate, photocopy charges for physicians will increase to 65 cents per page;
   
2. Deposition fees will increase to $500 per hour;
   
3. Fees for Formal Hearing Testimony for the Treating Physician will increase to $550 per hour;
   
4. Fees for Formal Hearing Testimony for the Employer/Respondent's Examiner will increase to $650 per hour.
   

THESE ARE COSTS THAT YOUR LAWYER INCURS IN REPRESENTING YOU IN A WC CASE. IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THESE INCREASED COSTS WILL BE PASSED ON TO THE CLIENTS.

For your convenience, copies may be downloaded from (the Connecticut WCC) website at:

http://wcc.state.ct.us/download/acrobat/proguide.pdf

Changes made Eliminating Revisions to medicare set-Asides

AttorneyAngelo Sevarino, the "Medicare Guru" for those of us in the field of WC law, has advised the Connewcticut Bar Association Worker's Compensation Section menbership of the following important update regarding Medicare set-asides.

"CMS has just released memorandum #11 dated August 25, 2008 and effective immediately it is no longer possible to petition CMS for a reduction or termination of an established set-aside. Previously we had the ability after 5 years to have CMS take a "second look" but that option is now" no longer available.

As always, if you think this change applies to your situation, feel free to contact the office.

Long Term Claimant Myopia

Claimants, Respondents and Commissioners should read this . This is the view of a good percentage of long term WC Claimants. This is not a healthy view, IMHO. This is a view of someone that does not understand the distinction between a legal case and getting on with ones' life.

Ever get that Sinking Feeling?

New Fee Guidelines Take Effect

The Connecticut Worker's Compensation Commission has announced that a new version of the Practitioner Fee Schedule will go into effect for all medical services rendered after July 15, 2008. The WCC memorandum may be read in it's entirety here.

The Guidelines is an important thing for WCC claimaints to keep in mind, especially those who have left the State and are looking for medical treatment. The Guidelines establish, as a matter of law, how much a physician may charge an insurer for a given procedure in a CT worker's comp case.

Say, for example, you have moved to Florida and need a spinal fusion. Your surgeon in Florida says he will do it, but will charge you $15,000.00 That may be what you will pay, but in terms of valuing it for settlement, if the Fee Guidelines allow only $5000 for a spinal fusion, that is how the Respondent will value it, no matter what your Florida doc says it will cost. Unfair? Maybe, but that is why it is wise to consult with an experienced WC lawyer before deciding to leave the State with an open and potentially active WC matter.

Further Ruminations on Vasquez

Last Tuesday I posted concerning the soon to be released Connecticut Supreme Court Decision which held that New York worker's comp law applied in the case of a New York City landscaper killed in a car crash incidental to a job he was doing in Greenwich. In giving the matter additional thought, I think there is an important lesson to be taken away from the seemingly harsh result. The lesson is this: Sometimes, it really does make a difference where you file your worker's comp claim.

In Vasquez, the decedent was clearly killed in Connecticut, while working for his employer on a Connecticut job. Yet, rather than make a claim for benefits in Connecticut his widow (or more likely his widow's New York Lawyer) elected to bring the claim New York State's worker's comp forum. Now I do not profess to be an expert in NY worker's comp law. I have heard, anecdotally, that it is less forgiving and even more harsh than Connecticut's post 1995 Act but I don't have any first hand knowledge. What I do know now (that admittedly I did not know last week) is that NY worker's comp law does not allow a worker to sue a fellow employee for injuries sustained in the operation of a motor vehicle. Connecticut does.

In the Vasquez case, the election of NY Comp has now come back to haunt the decedent's family big time. Had they given the matter further consideration, or perhaps talked to one of our many skilled Fairfield County comp lawyers, they may have made a different choice with a happier result.

Hindsight is 20/20. My point is this: we are a small State. Often our workers travel to NYC or Massachusetts or Rhode Island for work. Or vice versa. And sometimes they get hurt.

Before blindly electing to proceed under a given State's Worker's Comp system, stop, take a breath, and think of the Vasquez decision. Then at least do yourself the favor of sitting down with two experienced worker's compensation lawyers---one from each involved State ---and discuss your matter in detail. Only then, with eyes wide open, will you know which is the best option for you.

Breaking: Supremes Apply New York Law To Bar Recovery in Recovery In Greenwich Crash Death

In a decision due to be officially released on June 17th, the Connecticut Supreme Court has upheld a trial court decision concluding that New York Worker's Comp Law was the applicable standard to apply in connection with a June 2001 crash in Greenwich which took the life of Juan Rocato Brito, a New York City resident that was employed as a landscaper doing day work in Greenwich.

Had Connecticut law applied, a third party liability claim over and above a worker's comp claim could have been pursued under the "motor vehicle exception" of our Worker's Compensation Act providing the possibility of a far larger financial recovery than a worker's comp case alone can provide. New York WC law provides no such motor vehicle exception and since the Court has concluded that NY WC law applies here, then the Brito estate is left without any recovery over and above the comp case.The complete decision can be read here.

Despite Favorable Votes by the Labor Subcommittee, Connecticut WC Reforms Die on the Vine for 2008

The Connecticut General Assembly adjourned its 2008 legislative session without passing any of several workers' compensation bills that were opposed by the insurance industry, the American Insurance Association reported in a session end press release.

“Overall, AIA is very pleased with the outcome of the session,” said Laura Kersey, Northeast Region assistant vice president. “The industry was successful in defeating a number of proposals that would have had a negative impact on consumers and insurers. We feel strongly that the decisions made by the General Assembly this session will ultimately benefit workers throughout the state.”

The AIA said several "adverse proposals" would have significantly increased workers' compensation costs and undermined the workers' compensation reforms that the state enacted in 1993. For example, Senate Bill 255 would have greatly increased potential permanent partial disability (PPD) benefit payments in a state where PPD awards already are very high and well above the national average, the group said. In addition to the benefit increase, the legislation would have also created disincentives for injured workers to return to work in a timely and appropriate manner as well as increased the number of disputes within the system and costs associated with those additional disputes, such as attorney fees and medical-legal expert costs, according to the AIA.

The AIA said House Bill 5626 would have destabilized Connecticut's workers' compensation system by negating the exclusive remedy protection by allowing the injured worker to bring a civil action against the workers' compensation insurer for alleged breach of good faith and fair dealing in the administration of claims.

Source: AIA

New York Court Cites Exclusive remedy Provision to Limit Recovery in Changing Room Distress Claim

	A New York appellate court denied a worker's motion to amend her complaint against her employer who allegedly videotaped her as she changed into her uniform, because workers' compensation exclusive remedy would preclude her from alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress against her employer. An employee of the Northeast Theatre Corp. sued her employer after discovering that the business had videotaped a room in which employees frequently changed. The worker, Shinell Thomas, sued the employer alleging violation of her civil rights. She sought to amend her complaint in trial court to add a claim under General Obligations Law Section 395-b, which describes the unlawful installation of viewing devices such as cameras and mirrors. The trial court granted Thomas' motion to amend, but on appeal, the 1st Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court reversed that decision. The appellate justice explained: "Although section 395-b has been held to set forth a duty that may serve as a basis for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress (citation), any such claim would be barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law (citation). To the extent plaintiff also claims that defendants acted intentionally to inflict emotional distress, any such claim would be barred by the one-year statute of limitations." The published decision is named Thomas v. Northeast Theatre Corp., No. 3752N, 5/29/08. Source: WorkCompCentral

Summer Job Season is Upon Us: A Time for Teens To Be Careful

In a few weeks, millions of teens will be joining the work force, many for the first time. For most, nothing out of the ordinary will occur, but for about 70, their jobs will be lethal. About every three minutes, a teen is injured on the job. Worksafe BC has compiled the true stories of four ordinary kids whose first jobs proved devastating. In this series of short, compelling video clips, each teen tells the story of their injury, how it happened, and how it has affected their lives. The teens' parents also talk about things from their perspective. The clips are graphic, frightening, and real, and demonstrate just how quickly something can go wrong. They should be mandatory viewing for employers who hire teens, for teen workers, and for parents of working teens.

John's story - how 16-year old John Higgins broke his back in a forklift accident.
Jennifer's story - how 19-year old Jennifer Fourchalk lost three fingers, which were caught in dough-making equipment in a pizzeria.
Michael's story - how 18-year old Michael Lovett lost a leg when sucked into machinery in a sawmill.
Nick's story - (raw language alert) - how 19-year old Nick Perry became paralyzed when crushed by lumber in a lumberyard.

Some of the common themes in the stories:

* Enthusiasm. These kids badly wanted to please and impress bosses and co-workers and to do a good job. The teens didn't want to ask for help or to appear unwilling to do what was asked of them - they wanted to be mature and good work contributors.
* Inexperience. The teens seemed unaware of the power of equipment they were using and the potential for injuries. Jennifer didn't realize how powerful the kitchen equipment was. Michael seemed unaware that he could refuse to engage in unsafe behaviors, like jumping off dangerous equipment. They appear to assume that dangers were just an inevitable condition of the work.
* Lack of training. None of these teens had been properly trained in the equipment they were using nor had they received basic safety practices and procedures, such as lock out/tag out. All of these injuries might have been prevented had the workers been trained and had machine safeguards been in place. John actually emulated unsafe practices he had observed other workers doing.
* Working alone. In most of these examples, the teens were not being supervised when the injuries occurred.
* Regretful parents. Parents assumed employers would look out for their kids. Several parents expressed initial misgivings about the jobs their kids had taken. Many expressed regret that they hadn't looked into the work conditions more.

New Faces Continue as Two New Commsioners Join Our Ranks

The Connecticut Worker's Compensation Commission has recently welcomed its two newest members to its ranks. Commissioners Daniel Dilzer and David Schoolcraft have begun work recently and are presently in training to preside over dockets of their own. Both Commissioners come from extensive hands on practice experience including worker's compensation and I am sure they will both make fine additions to the Commission. We wish them well as they begin their new adventure.

The Worker's Comp Commission press release on its newest members may be read here.