Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Workers' Comp: CA Bill Would Stop Insurers From Suspending Care

A California Senate committee has approved a bill that directly addresses a problem reported in the ProPublica/NPR investigation of state changes in workers' compensation benefits.The measure sponsored by the California Medical Association (CMA) would prohibit insurance companies from using the state's 2012 workers' compensation reforms to reopen approved treatment plans and deny existing medical care.The CMA cited the ProPublica/NPR investigation in justifying the bill.ProPublica/NPR detailed the case of paralyzed worker Joel Ramirez, who lost his home health care after Travelers Insurance reopened his treatment plan. The story prompted the state Department of Industrial Relations to launch an audit of Travelers and to issue a warning to insurance companies that the new workers' comp reforms cannot be used to deny approved home health care.The new bill blocks changes in treatment plans unless there is a relevant and demonstrated change in the medical condition of the injured worker, or the care is determined to no longer be based on current medical evidence or treatment guidelines.Insurance companies "cannot withdraw care until an independent medical review is completed and an alternative treatment is provided—unlike what happened to Ramirez," reports ProPublica's Michael Grabell, in this detailed story on the measure.CMA also cited a 2014 survey of 231 medical practices, which focused on the medical review processes established by California's 2012 workers' comp reforms.Two-thirds of the physicians responding to the survey said new review procedures made it more difficult to get approval for treatment. Close to half said the greatest problem and challenge in the new approval system is "inappropriate denials of medically necessary tests, procedures or services."The Senate bill is opposed by business and insurance interests who worry about unnecessary and costly treatment.Original Source
Contact the Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. today if you have a workers' compensation or a Social Security disability case.
Phone: 303-595-4777
We are located in the Denver Metro area.
226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer 
Any content of this blog is intended for informational purposes only.It is not intended to solicit business, provide legal advice from The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. and does not serve as a medium for an attorney-client relationship. Therefore, The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. is not responsible for the information on this blog which may not apply to every reader. Always seek professional counsel if you have any legal matters. Contents within the blog of The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C., logos and other related media are protected by the copyright laws of the United States and other jurisdictions.

Privacy Policy

Monday, July 13, 2015

Workers Can Be Fired For Off-Duty Marijuana Use, Colorado Court Says

Pot may be legal in Colorado, but you can still be fired for using it.
The state Supreme Court ruled Monday that a medical marijuana patient who was fired after failing a drug test cannot get his job back. The case has big implications for employers and pot smokers in states that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana. Colorado became the first state to legalize recreational pot in 2012. Though the case involves medical marijuana, the court’s decision could also affect how companies treat employees who use the drug recreationally.
Brandon Coats is a quadriplegic who was fired by Dish Network after failing a drug test in 2010. The company agreed that Coats wasn’t high on the job but said it has a zero-tolerance drug policy.
The court first agreed to take up the case in January.
no_potCourts in California, Montana and Washington state also ruled against medical marijuana patients fired for pot use.
Coats argued that his pot smoking was allowed under a Colorado law intended to protect employees from being fired for legal activities off the clock. Coats didn’t use marijuana at work, and he wasn’t accused of being high on the job. But pot’s intoxicating chemical, THC, can stay in the system for weeks.
The company argued that because pot is illegal under federal law, medical marijuana isn’t covered by the state law.
Twenty-three states and Washington, D.C., allow medical marijuana. Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington state and Washington, D.C., have legalized recreational sales, though court cases so far have involved medical patients.
The Colorado Constitution specifically states that employers don’t have to amend their policies to accommodate employees’ marijuana use.
In arguments last year, Dish attorney Meghan Martinez declared that it didn’t matter whether Coats was ever high on the job.
“This case need not be an endorsement or an indictment of medical marijuana” but a chance to set standards for employee conduct, Martinez said. “It’s a zero-tolerance policy. It doesn’t matter if he was impaired or not.”
Coats’ attorney, Michael Evans, asked the court to issue a narrow ruling that would apply to people like Coats: those in nonhazardous jobs who are not impaired at work and whose employers don’t have federal contracts that could be jeopardized.
Coats was paralyzed in a car crash as a teenager and has been a medical marijuana patient since 2009, when he discovered that pot helped calm violent muscle spasms. He was a telephone operator with Dish for three years before he failed a random drug test in 2010 and was fired. He said he told his supervisors in advance that he probably would fail the test.
A trial court judge and Colorado’s appeals court upheld his firing, saying pot can’t be considered lawful if it is outlawed at the federal level.

Original Source


Contact the Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. today if you have a workers' compensation or a Social Security disability case.
Phone: 303-595-4777
We are located in the Denver Metro area.
226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer 
Any content of this blog is intended for informational purposes only.It is not intended to solicit business, provide legal advice from The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. and does not serve as a medium for an attorney-client relationship. Therefore, The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. is not responsible for the information on this blog which may not apply to every reader. Always seek professional counsel if you have any legal matters. Contents within the blog of The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C., logos and other related media are protected by the copyright laws of the United States and other jurisdictions.

Privacy Policy

Saturday, July 4, 2015

Happy 4th of July from the Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C.

Contact the Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. today if you have a workers' compensation or a Social Security disability case.
Phone: 303-595-4777
We are located in the Denver Metro area.
226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer 
Any content of this blog is intended for informational purposes only.It is not intended to solicit business, provide legal advice from The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. and does not serve as a medium for an attorney-client relationship. Therefore, The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. is not responsible for the information on this blog which may not apply to every reader. Always seek professional counsel if you have any legal matters. Contents within the blog of The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C., logos and other related media are protected by the copyright laws of the United States and other jurisdictions.

Privacy Policy

Thursday, July 2, 2015

The Texas Lawbook

Workers at thousands of Texas businesses who are seriously injured on the job may find it harder to sue their employers for damages after an accident.
The Supreme Court of Texas, in a potentially precedent-setting decision issued last week, slammed the courthouse door on damages for many employees hurt while working in hazardous situations. The case affects employees of companies that have opted out of the state’s workers’ compensation system.
The justices unanimously ruled that millions of workers at the approximately 144,000 noninsured Texas businesses are no longer able to seek compensation in such cases.
But the ruling — which is a huge loss for workers under the “premises liability” law — is a bit of a two-edged sword.
In that same opinion, the high court stunned lawyers by stating that employees should be able to recover damages under a separate “negligence” law if the employer failed to provided proper equipment, training or supervision that could have prevented the injury.
Such negligence claims with potentially major damage awards have not been previously available to workers in Texas.
Texas is the only state that does not require companies to be part of their state workers’ comp system. About a third of Texas employers don’t buy workers’ comp insurance. Kroger, Wal-Mart, Albertson’s, Taco Bell and Whole Foods are some of the biggest.
Legal experts say the ruling was intended to provide clearer guidance for litigation between workers and those employers.

Mopping accident

The case in question began in July 2009 when Randy Austin, a longtime maintenance employee for Kroger in Mesquite, fell while mopping oil that had leaked onto a restroom floor.
The Kroger handbook recommended cleaning such spills with the powdery absorbent product Spill Magic, which was estimated to reduce the likelihood of a slip-and-fall by 25 percent, according to court records.
Spill Magic was unavailable, however, so Austin cleaned the restrooms with a regular mop. As he cleaned the women’s restroom, Austin slipped and fell, fracturing his femur and dislocating his hip.
Austin spent nine months in the hospital and underwent six surgeries, which left his left leg 2 inches shorter than his right.
When Kroger refused to compensate him the amount he believed he deserved, Austin sued in federal court in Dallas. U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle rejected both Austin’s negligence and premises liability claims.
The federal court of appeals asked the Texas Supreme Court to clarify state law on the matter.

Future litigation

Lawyers for Kroger contend the ruling significantly strengthens the legal position of all businesses in all future premises liability litigation involving injured workers.
“Most importantly, it dispels the misconception among the plaintiff’s bar that Texas ‘punishes’ Texas employers who opt out of the workers’ compensation system,” said Dallas appellate attorney Donna Peavler, who argued the case for Kroger.
While lawyers who represent workers admit the premises liability part of the decision is terrible for their clients, they eagerly point to the justices’ view that Judge Boyle should reconsider Austin’s negligence claim.
“We have never addressed the interaction between premises-liability and an employer’s other general negligence duties. We do so now,” wrote Justice Jeffrey S. Boyd, who delivered the 34-page opinion. “As Austin’s employer, Kroger owed Austin duties in addition to its premises-liability duty and its duty not to engage in negligent activities, including the duty to provide Austin with necessary instrumentalities.”
For a longer version of this article, please visit TexasLawbook.net

Contact the Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. today if you have a workers' compensation or a Social Security disability case.
Phone: 303-595-4777
We are located in the Denver Metro area.
226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer 
Any content of this blog is intended for informational purposes only.It is not intended to solicit business, provide legal advice from The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. and does not serve as a medium for an attorney-client relationship. Therefore, The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. is not responsible for the information on this blog which may not apply to every reader. Always seek professional counsel if you have any legal matters. Contents within the blog of The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C., logos and other related media are protected by the copyright laws of the United States and other jurisdictions.

Privacy Policy