Florida Injury Victim Lawyer Blog

A Florida construction worker has died after falling off a roof while working on a construction job in Palm Coast, Florida. The accident happened when a Florida construction worker fell off the roof of the Epic Theaters which is currently under construction in Town Center. The construction accident happened on Wednesday, February 3, 2010, according to news reports.

The construction worker, was employed by a subcontractor, Palatka Welding, which was reportedly working on the roof of the Epic Theaters, when he fell nearly 25-feet to his death. The incident reportedly occurred at 10 a.m. in the building, located on Central Avenue. Flagler County Sheriff’s Department officials responded to the scene of the tragic workplace accident and the construction worker, identified as 40-year-old Daniel Vance Caldwell, suffered fatal injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene.

Falls from roofs and falls at construction sites cause a high number of fatal injuries to workers in Florida and most could be prevented if the employer provides the proper fall prevention apparatus to workers. If you or a family member have been seriously injured as a result of a fall while working or while on a construction site and would like to discuss your legal rights call Payer Law Group at 877-854-4442 to have a free consultation with one of our attorneys.

Posted by James Payer | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

On June 3, 2009 in the case of Francesca Engler v. American Friends of the Hebrew University and Fireman's Fund Insurance, Florida's First District Court of Appeals ruled that an insurance company can not argue Major Contributing Cause (or more than 50% of the cause for the injury) once compensability of the work accident is established. As a Florida attorney who represent victims of work related accidents I know what a victory this is for injured workers in Florida.

For your convenience I have included a copy of the opinion below.

FRANCESCA ENGLER v.

AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY and FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE, Case No. 1D08-4794

Claimant raises two issues: 1) the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred by finding Claimant’s compensable accident was “no longer” the major contributing cause (MCC) of her condition and need for treatment; and 2) the JCC erred by denying entitlement to medical treatment for injuries she previously found compensable. For the reasons explained below, we agree and reverse.

Claimant was in a work-related motor vehicle accident which Claimant asserted caused injuries to her cervical and thoracic spine, knees, and ankles, and either caused or aggravated her migraine headaches. The employer/carrier (E/C) asserted Claimant’s injuries were pre-existing. In her 2007 order, the JCC addressed Claimant’s prior accidents and pre-existing conditions, but ultimately accepted the opinion of Claimant’s expert that the 2004 compensable motor vehicle accident was the MCC of Claimant’s injuries, and awarded medical treatment for them.
Claimant subsequently filed additional petitions for benefits seeking, inter alia, authorization of the medical care previously awarded, but suspended by the E/C. During litigation, the E/C presented Claimant’s new treating doctors with records concerning her prior accidents and injuries that were not presented to either the medical experts or the JCC prior to the 2007 order. Based on these records, the doctors opined the compensable accident was not the MCC of Claimant’s injuries. The JCC accepted these opinions and denied entitlement to further medical treatment for the injuries she previously found compensable, finding the compensable accident was no longer the MCC of Claimant’s “condition” or need for treatment.

Relying on our decision in City of Ocoee v. Trimble, 929 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), the JCC found res judicata did not apply, because the holding in that case distinguished between the concepts of compensability and a claimant’s entitlement to treatment or other benefits. While we did make this distinction in Trimble, the JCC misapplied it here.

Once compensability is established, an E/C can no longer contest that the accident is the MCC of the injuries at issue. It can only contest the connection between a claimant’s need for specific treatment or benefits, and the industrial accident.

Compounding this error was the fact that the opinions upon which the JCC relied in making this finding were, in turn, based on records that pre-dated the compensable accident, and could have been presented to the experts who testified prior to the 2007 merits hearing, and to the JCC before she issued her 2007 order. For reasons not clear from the record, the E/C failed to do so. The JCC’s reliance on this evidence effectively gave the E/C “another bite at the apple.” This was error. See Pigg v. Balderson, Inc., 951 So. 2d 914, 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (affirming JCC’s refusal to consider evidence that should have been presented at prior hearing where claimant sought permanent total disability benefits after order denying prior request for such benefits).

By failing to apply the doctrine of res judicata to the issue of the MCC of Claimant’s injuries, the JCC also erred by denying entitlement to treatment for those injuries she found compensable in her 2007 order. Accordingly, this matter is REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

WOLF, KAHN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

Posted by James Payer | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

It's no surprise that insurance industry sees any effort by the federal government to set up a commission to study state workers' compensation laws and practices as unjustified and a waste of taxpayers' money, according to the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA). As an attorney who represents injured workers in Florida I see these type of efforts by the insurance lobby to suppress the rights of injured workers and other injury victims all the time.

H.R. 635, the "National Commission on State Workers' Compensation Laws Act of 2009." The bill would create a commission tasked with evaluating the state-based workers' compensation insurance system and making recommendations for improvements to the system. This type of national review of the states workers' compensation systems is long overdue. Over the past 30 years the rights of this nation's workers, who are the backbone of our economy, has given way to the more powerful insurance lobby and its billions of dollars in annual profits. The benefits that injured workers receive after they are injured on the job has been whittled down to almost nothing while at the same time the profits of the giant workers compensation insurance companies have skyrocketed.

PIA National Government Affairs Committee Chairman Johnny Lee says that "Workers' compensation programs are regulated by the states, not the federal government. The federal government should not seek to interfere in a state-based and state-regulated system. This is a waste of time and taxpayers dollars." What Mr. Lee fails to state is the fact that the insurance lobby has been successful in obtaining laws in most states that favor insurance companies over injured workers and he does not want that to change since it will hurt the enormous profits of the insurance companies that his group represents.

Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.) introduced H.R. 635 on January 22, 2009. It was referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor. Identical legislation failed to advance in the House during the 110th Congress.

Under the proposal, the commission would be composed of 14 members, 10 of whom would be political appointees. The commission would have the authority to hold hearings, issue subpoenas, take testimony, and receive evidence. It would be required to make recommendations for improvements to the workers compensation system within 18 months.

It comes as no surprise that PIA supports the current state-based system of insurance regulation and opposes legislation that would transfer supervisory authority to the federal government and also opposes the National Insurance Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 1880) by Reps. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) and Melissa Bean (D-Ill.).

Hopefully this national effort on behalf of workers will succeed and the rights of workers injured on the job will begin to be restored.

Posted by James Payer | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

51 year old John Woodson, an Oklahoma man who lost an eye and a leg in Iraq says the giant insurance company AIG refused to provide him a new plastic leg and fought to keep from paying for a wheelchair or glasses for the eye in which he has 30 percent vision.

"They bought the cheapest thing that they could get away with," said Mr. Woodson, a truck driver for the KBR contracting firm who lost his leg when his truck hit a roadside bomb in Iraq.

"Everything's been a struggle, a constant fight," said Woodson. "It's been hell since."

Woodson is covered by AIG under a government-mandated program that provides medical and disability benefits for employees working for U.S. contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. AIG covers about 90 percent of the claims for overseas workers.

Woodson, who was injured in 2004 and is still in constant pain, says he was infuriated to see AIG executives receive huge bonuses, travel on private jets and be pampered at a California spa. "They're getting their bonuses but they fight you, they'll constantly fight in order to try to get you to give up," said Woodson.

Woodson is one of a number of injured contractors whose alleged difficulties with AIG were examined in the joint investigation. Despite theses complaints AIG has said that it strives to provide "quality" care. But their denial of benefits to the people who purchase and count on their insurance only helps the bottom line of the insurance giant while hurting the injury victim.

In Woodson's case, when his fuel truck hit the hidden bomb outside Baghdad, he was blown through the roof of his cab and thrown about a hundred feet away, also damaging his back and breaking his pelvis. Woodson says he was told by an AIG representative in the hospital that he would be fully covered by AIG, but that when he returned home, he quickly discovered AIG was prepared to challenge almost all of his medical needs.

AIG Refused to Buy Him a New Leg, Woodson Says "I've had to argue for everything, you constantly stay on the phone, writing letters, e-mailing, trying to get things to happen," Woodson said.

To cushion the impact on his injured back and pelvis, Woodsen asked AIG for a new plastic leg with a spring in the foot. "It was just so painful just to walk," Woodson said. He says AIG refused to buy him a new leg, which he says would have cost about $8,000. AIG also refused, he said, to provide him a water-proof leg so he could remain standing and take a shower.

U.S. military amputees are normally provided three different legs, to cover a full range of walking, showering and exercising. In the end, Woodson says he thinks it was pressure from his lawyer and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) that forced AIG to finally provide an improved leg, with replacement parts, but not a new one as his doctor had ordered. Woodson's lawyer, Toby Cole, says he sees a pattern of AIG "delaying and denying" claims from contractors injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by James Payer | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

A debate over workers' compensation insurance will pit attorneys and workers' rights advocates against business and insurers.

The argument is the result of a Florida Supreme Court decision in October relating to the amount of fees lawyers can earn on workers' comp cases. The ruling found that a lawyer representing an injured employee has a right to earn a ''reasonable'' rate for his work.

Sounds simple, but insurers and businesses say the ruling undoes changes to the law six years ago, including caps on lawyer fees, that helped bring rates down more than 60 percent.

Attorneys and workers advocates argue that the 2003 cap on lawyer fees limited the ability of some injured workers to find an attorney willing to take a case, which is usually done on contingency.

Businesses, convinced that attorney fees were the main reason for escalating insurance rates, want legislation restoring the order they favor.

''Absent a change, rates will begin to climb,'' says David Daniel, director of government relations for the Florida Chamber of Commerce. The chamber has made the workers' comp law one of the top issues on its legislative agenda this year.

$8 AN HOUR

In the case that went to the state's highest court, lawyer Brian Sutter was paid about $8 an hour for the 80 hours he spent working on the case of an injured nurse under the 2003 law's formula. The attorney for her employer was paid $150 an hour.

Sutter argued the fee disparity left workers with an unconstitutional disadvantage. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was unclear since it referred to ''reasonable'' fees while also laying out a fee structure.

A bill introduced by Rep. Anitere Flores, R-Miami-Dade, would strike the word ''reasonable'' from the law while retaining the same fee schedule for attorneys. A companion bill has been filed by Sen. Garrett S. Richter, a Republican from Naples who chairs the Senate Banking and Insurance committee.

Sen. Dan Gelber, D-Miami, has introduced another workers comp bill that would allow injured employers to chose their own attorney and fees wouldn't be limited. That's would reverse the current law.

Paul Anderson, an executive officer with the Florida Justice Association, which represents trial lawyers, had been negotiating with Tamela Perdue, chairwoman of the Workers' Compensation Coalition for Business & Industry. The groups were trying to reach a compromise that could be used to draft a bill that could win speedy approval.

TALKS BREAK OFF

But the talks broke off last week, said Anderson.

He said the trial bar, several workers' advocate groups and several unions continue to work with legislators on a bill with a rate structure that would compensate attorneys when taking on these cases.

Before the 2003 reforms, Florida had some of the highest workers' comp insurance rates in the country. Many insurers were reluctant to write policies in the state.

Since the law was changed, costs have dropped dramatically.

Taking the court decision into consideration, the Office of Insurance Regulation approved a 6.4 percent increase in workers' comp rates for this year. The National Council on Compensation Insurance had filed for an 8.9 percent hike.

OIR said the approved rate increase will add about $172 million in insurance costs for Florida employers. But, in combination with the 18.6 percent rate decrease that took effect Jan. 1, the net savings to Florida employers is still $438 million.

'Although it is still somewhat early to know for sure what the full impact of the Supreme Court's decision on workers' compensation rates will be, I felt it was necessary to approve this modest increase,'' said Commissioner McCarty.

Source: Beatrice Garcia, Miami Herald

Posted by James Payer | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

Selecting your own treating physician in a workers’ compensation claim may soon become permitted nationally. A movement in Iowa has now sparked national interest to permit employees the right to choose their medical provider.

Coupled with the effort for employees to seek freedom of choice “to form unions and bargain for a better life” is the effort to seek freedom to choice a medical provider in a work-related accident or occupational illness.

The effort has been supported by an interest group formed on Facebook, “Iowians for Workers Choice of Doctor.” “Because life is about more than just work...In Iowa, if you are injured on the job, employers can decide which doctor treats you. You choose what foods you eat and which exercises you do, but they can choose who is best to care for you.”

Iowa Senate Bill 1119 would allow injured workers to designate their choice of physician. “Too much has been made of how much this is going to cost a company and not enough on how this affects an individual and their personal lives,” said Democratic Sen. Bill Dotzler of Waterloo.

The vast majority of states allow workers the freedom to choose their own treating physicians. Studies have shown that employees who have the right to select their own physician have more confidence in their medical care and have a more successful recovery.

The delivery of medical services continues to be a major problem in the national network of workers’ compensation systems now in place since 1911. Federal initiatives for a national healthcare system are under consideration that would incorporate the entire workers’ compensation system’s medical delivery system.

Posted by James Payer | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

Florida's injured workers were dealt a blow when Florida's 4th DCA issued its ruling in the case of Amorin v. Gordon, Case no. 4D08-1376 (opinion is posted below).

The Court held that one subcontractor was not liable in tort for the death/injury of the employee of another subcontractor. Interpreting F.S. 440.10(e) the court held that a subcontractor whose employee's negligence caused the injury or death of an employee of another subcontractor was entitled to workers' compensation immunity (aka "exclusiveness of liability under FS 440.11) unless the tortfeasor/subcontractor or contractor failed to secure workers' compensation coverage AND the subcontractor's own gross negligence was not the major contributing cause of the injury/death.

As a Florida attorney representing injury victims for over 15 years I am concerned that this decision will eliminate many claims that injury victims have had in the past against negligent companies and their employees without providing the injured worker any benefits. It is long been the law in Florida that employers who secure workers' compensation insurance coverage shall not be liable in tort to their employees who get injured on the job in return for providing them with workers' compensation benefits regardless of fault. That was a trade-off for the injured worker where [alleged] certainty and efficiency were given in exchange for potential recovery. However, extending these same immunities to subcontractors who have no obligation to provide the injured worker any workers compensation or other benefits is tantamount to "giving or getting something for nothing". This law provides nothing to the injured worker while providing a windfall to subcontractors who can act with near immunity to the employees of other subcontractors in the state of Florida.

All the attorneys at the Payer Law Group have been representing only injury and their families for over 15 years. If you or a loved one has been involved in a work place accident contact The Payer Law Group at 1-877-854-4442 for your free consultation with an attorney today.

Continue reading "Florida's Injured Workers Dealt Setback When Court Upholds Workers' Compensation Immunity for Subcontractor" »

Posted by James Payer | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

A company at Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, Florida faces $88,200 in fines in connection with a cargo ship accident that killed three workers earlier this year. The company, Florida Transportation Services, denies wrongdoing.

Florida workers Hayman Sooknanan, 47, James Cason, 43, and Rene Robert Dutertre Jr., 25, died May 20, after inhaling argon gas that was leaking from a storage container aboard a ship they were working in. Argon is a colorless, odorless gas used for welding and in light bulbs. It's not toxic, but it can displace oxygen within a confined space. An autopsy by the Broward medical examiner determined that the three men suffocated.

On Friday, the U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) cited Florida Transportation Services for five alleged violations, including failure to properly train workers on how to detect the release of a gas such as argon.

But company owner John Gorman Jr. said his workers were properly trained. He said in a statement that ''FTS remains committed to the safety of all its employees. We look forward to meeting with OSHA to clarify information that may not have been considered in the investigation. In the meantime, we continue to think about the friends we lost, and keep their families in our prayers.''

OSHA said its ''proposed penalty''is $63,000. The agency put the charge in its "willful'' category, which is the most severe. Willful violations are those committed with plain indifference to, or intentional disregard for, employees' safety and health.

According to OSHA, the company also:

• Allowed ''non-designated persons'' to enter a hazardous environment.

• Loaded an argon tank with a damaged identification number into the ship.

• Didn't use an alarm system to warn workers about the gas leak.

• Didn't establish evacuation procedures to be used in this type of emergency.

OSHA described all four of these charges as ''serious,'' which means the agency thinks ''death or serious physical harm is likely to result from a hazard'' the employer knew or should have known about about. The agency proposed a fine of $25,200 for those alleged violations. However, OSHA often negotiates reduced fines with companies.

Friday's citations weren't the first OSHA has issued against Florida Transportation Services. The agency has fined the company more than $101,000 since 2006. In an August 2006 inspection, OSHA investigators flagged 19 safety violations at the company's Port Everglades operation, including a $1,500 penalty for exposing dock workers to potential ''crushing'' from trucks and forklifts around the docks. Less than five months later, on Jan. 6, 2007, 40-year-old worker Jorge Alberto was crushed between a concrete pole and a forklift unloading steel bars from a cargo ship. Alberto, of Hialeah, died five days later. Following Alberto's death, OSHA cited Florida Transportation Services for eight more safety violations, and the company was ordered to pay $80,780 in fines. The company has operated at Port Everglades since 1981.

News Source: Miami Herald

Posted by James Payer | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

The Florida Supreme Court in the case of Emma Murray v. Mariner Health and ACE USA, No. SC07-244 ruled that Florida's Workers' Compensation Law allows injured workers to receive "reasonable attorney's fees" from the insurance carrier where the employer and its insurance carrier wrongfully deny benefits and the claimant prevails.

As a Florida attorney who represents injury victims in workers' compensation claims in Florida for more than 15 years I can say that this case represents a substantial victory for Florida's injured workers. Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in this case Florida's lower courts held that an attorney representing an injured worker was only entitled to recover a small statutory percentage of the benefits paid to the claimant. However, the employers and their insurance carriers had no such restriction and they were able to pay their attorneys as much as they wanted. This not only encouraged the insurance carrier to wrongfully deny legitimate claims it encouraged insurance companies to not provide injured workers the much-needed benefits they are required to provide under Florida's Workers Compensation Laws.

Now injured workers will be placed on a more equal playing field with their employers and their insurance carriers since they will be able to obtain legal representation to help them fight their case in Florida's Workers Compensation Courts should an employer and their insurance carrier choose to wrongfully deny benefits to an injured worker. Additionally, insurance companies will be discouraged from wrongfully denying benefits to injured workers since they will be responsible for paying a reasonable attorney's fee to the injured worker in cases where they wrongfully deny benefits and the injured worker prevails.

Below is a copy of the Opinion issued by Florida's Supreme Court:

Continue reading "Florida's Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Injured Workers" »

Posted by James Payer | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

Florida's First District Court of Appeals in the case of Whitaker v. North American Tank Lines, Inc. ruled that where an employer/carrier defends a workers' compensation claims for temporary wage benefits based upon the defense that the claimant voluntarily limited his or her income the employer/carrier then has the burden of proving that at least one job existed within the injured worker's limitations.

In this case the injured worker attempted to return to work in his job as a tanker truck driver but due to the physical limitations caused by his workers compensation accident he was unable to perform the work assigned to him and the injured worker "voluntarily left his job."

Based upon the ruling in Myers v. Hillsborough County School Board, 911 So.2d 851 the court ruled that the voluntary limitation of income defense failed because the employer/carrier failed to prove that at least one job existed within the injured worker's limitations. For the same reason that defense failed in this case.

Posted by James Payer | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

The First District Court of Appeals in the State of Florida in the case of Palm Beach County School District v. Francis Ferrer ruled that an injured worker's voluntary dismissal of a petition for benefits prior to the scheduled final merits hearing triggers the provision under F.S. 440.34(3) in Florida's workers' compensation laws which states: "If any party should prevail in any proceedings before a judge of compensation claims or court, there shall be taxed against the non-prevailing party the reasonable costs of such proceedings, not to include attorneys fees."

Applying the plain meaning rule of statutory construction the court stated "the prevailing party is entitled to the reasonable costs incurred in the proceedings before the judge of compensation claims. Whether the dismissal was taken with or without prejudice has no bearing on this result." Citing Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 568 So.2d 914 (Fla. 1990) the court went on to state that "A defendant generally becomes the prevailing party when a plaintiff dismisses its action."

This case could potentially have a chilling effect on injured workers by discouraging them from filing claims against their employers and insurance carriers for workers' compensation benefits due to a fear of having to pay the costs of the defense should they not prevail. While I think this may be a valid fear there are ways to avoid this exposure such as entering into an agreement with the employer/carrier for each party to bear its own costs should a voluntary dismissal be necessary or the filing of a Notice of Dropping Party rather than a voluntary dismissal in the case where the wrong employer or insurance carrier is identified in the petition for benefit.

Posted by James Payer | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

As a Florida attorney who represents injured workers in workers' compensation cases I frequently deal with the strict time limitations placed on injured workers under Florida's workers' compensation laws. In most cases under Florida's workers' compensation laws an injured worker is required to notify their employer of the accident and/or injury within 30 days from the date of the accident and/or injury.

Florida Statutes 440.185(1) states:

An employee who suffers an injury arising out of and in the course of employment shall advise his or her employer of the injury within 30 days after the date of or initial manifestation of the injury. Failure to so advise the employer shall bar a petition under this chapter unless:

(a) The employer or the employer's agent had actual knowledge of the injury;

(b) The cause of the injury could not be identified without a medical opinion and the employee advised the employer within 30 days after obtaining a medical opinion indicating that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment;

(c) The employer did not put its employees on notice of the requirements of this section by posting notice pursuant to s. 440.055; or

(d) Exceptional circumstances, outside the scope of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) justify such failure.

If an injured worker fails to notify his or her employer within this 30 day time period their claim will probably be denied by the employer and its workers' compensation insurance carrier.

In order to avoid this potentially devastating pitfall I strongly encourage injured workers to notify their employer of the accident and/or injury in writing and to keep a copy of that document for future reference. Having handled over a thousand workers' compensation cases in Florida I frequently encounter employers who deny notice of the work accident and/or injury even though they were verbally notified of the accident and/or injury by the injured worker verbally in an attempt to wrongfully deny the workers' compensation claim. At that point it's the injured worker's word against that of his or her employer and as you can see the chances of winning are 50/50 at best.

If you or one of your loved ones has been the victim of a work related accident you should get a free initial consultation with an attorney in your area in order to better understand you rights and just as important, your obligations under Florida's workers' compensation laws. These laws can be quite complex and place strict time limitations on the injured worker. If these time limitations are not complied with your workers' compensation can be denied. I can assure you that the adjuster on your claim has an attorney counseling him or her, shouldn't you?

Posted by James Payer | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

As an attorney who represents Florida injury victims, I get upset when I hear a common public perception that the majority of people who are collecting workers' compensation are "faking it" and are defrauding the system. For some reason many people think that victims of work-related accidents strike it rich and go on with their lives like nothing ever happened and with newfound wealth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Given the fact that the workers' compensation laws in Florida and many other states were drafted to benefit insurance companies and employers the only ones profiting from the workers' compensation system are insurance companies. Having handled over a thousand workers' compensation claims on behalf of injured workers in the State of Florida I have seen the dramatic effects an injury at work can have on the injured worker and their family. I have seen many of my clients lose their jobs, homes, cars, and life's savings as a result of being injured at work. I have also seen many of my clients' marriages end up in divorce due to the added financial and emotional stress caused by being injured at work.

Just look at the following facts:

In Florida out of 54,854 claims filed in 2005 there were 178 fraud convictions and 130 of those were against EMPLOYERS. So out of almost 55,000 claims filed there were only 48 fraud convictions against injured workers. That's less than .087 percent of all claims and certainly not to be considered "rampant."

In Kansas out of 66,469 workers' compensation claims filed in the year 2006 there were 798 fraud complaints reported and 718 of those were against employers.

In Rhode Island, out of 6,971 injuries filed in the year 2005, there were 5,219 fraud claims reported and 5,174 of those involved employers.

In Tennessee, a penalty program was initiated in 2004 as part of the Workers Compensation Reform Act. Since that time the program has collected nearly $300,000 from employers and insurance carriers.

In New York, a 2007 report by the Fiscal Policy Institute concluded that 25 to 30% of all companies in New York are not purchasing workers' compensation insurance and that noncompliance, or failure to buy required insurance, was a growing problem in New York State, which in turn increased premiums and shifted the cost of medical care to injured workers, taxpayers and their employers. It also concluded that between $500 million and $1 billion was being lost to the system annually.

As you can see the facts simply do not support the common misconception of rampant fraud by injured workers. In fact the studies show that there is possibly rampant fraud by employers and their insurance carriers which is costing the system and taxpayers far more money.

While we can all agree that any fraud is too much fraud in the workers' compensation system (and any other industry for that matter) the focus should be on eliminating fraud by employers and their insurance companies and not the injured worker.

Posted by James Payer | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation

Bookmark: