Amendment 69 and Workers' Compensation

Passage of Amendment 69 Could be Bad News for Colorado Workers’ Compensation
by Kaplan Morrell
Colorado has long been a sort of “proving ground” for new and tentative legislation. Some reasons for this is our status as a swing state and the ease of getting initiatives on our voting ballots in the first place. National groups frequently test proposals in our state, and often the proposed legislation is quite extraordinary. Take legalized recreational marijuana in 2012, for instance. This election year will be no different, and there will be several controversial initiatives on the ballot for voters to decide upon, such as “right to die” and raising the minimum wage to $12. One such ballot initiatives that is of particular interest for Colorado’s workers’ compensation system is universal health care.

Amendment 69 – ColoradoCare Ballot Initiative

This proposed amendment is an attempt to introduce a single payer system, also called universal health care, to Colorado. The proposed program, named ColoradoCare, would replace the Affordable Care Act. Estimates place the yearly price tag for ColoradoCare at around $25 billion dollars. A business and worker tax, along with an increased state tax rate, is meant to pay for the program. This tax option does away with deductibles and medical insurance premiums. However, this tax increase would practically double the current state budget, and saddles Coloradans with the highest income tax rate in the nation.

Accountability is questionable. This program is to be run by a board of 21 members who will be elected by plan members. Furthermore, there are no real specifics about what the new plan will cover, just what programs it will replace. The board will retain sole authority on coverage decisions. Hospital and doctor reimbursement levels are uncertain, calling into question continued quality care under the new system.

Potential Impact on our Workers’ Compensation (WC) Program

ColoradoCare will collect funding and administer the Colorado Workers’ Compensation program, as well as all other state and federal programs, with the exception of Medicare. This has the very real potential of destabilizing a well-functioning system. Our Workers’ Compensation program in Colorado is widely viewed as one of the best in the nation, as it efficiently balances affordable premiums for employers and the provision of fair benefits for injured employees. Denver Workers’ Compensation attorneys are a big part of this system.

– Overhaul of how the Colorado Workers’ Compensation program works

Currently, the system both replaces lost wages and provides medical care for injured workers. The proposed single-payer system will remove the healthcare portion of this system from the program and move it under ColoradoCare. It’s not known how the new set-up will work with only wage replacement under WC, but confusion and disarray are far too likely. There is also the question of cost. Employers currently pay for Workers’ Compensation insurance to cover all of the benefits for injured employees. They will now pay a higher tax rate for ColoradoCare and still be on the hook for the indemnity portion of Workers’ Compensation. It’s a quagmire.

– Unsettles a working system

Workers’ Compensation in Colorado does more than pay out benefits. It promotes worker-safety programs and encourages employers to prevent workplace injuries. Providers and established Workers’ Compensation health professionals are experienced in managing worker injuries. They collaborate with employers and workers to help them get to maximum medical improvement and get back to their jobs safely, whenever possible.

– Eliminates subrogation

Workers Compensation is a no-fault system. But sometimes, there is fault, due to a non-employer third-party. In these cases, Workers’ Compensation insurers can pursue monetary recovery from the negligent party through subrogation. With the passage of Amendment 69, first rights to subrogation cedes to ColoradoCares. This loss of funds impacts the insurers and injured workers ability to recover for injuries.

– More Unknowns

At this time, it is not even known whether ColoradoCare will cover the incidental expenses that Workers’ Compensation in Colorado addresses, such as transportation to medical appointments. And there is no guarantee that injured workers will continue to be able to see qualified professionals in occupational medicine and other specialties that are required to give injured employees the best possible specialized care in a timely manner. Overall, there are simply too many variables and unknowns to enthusiastically support Amendment 69 for implementation of ColoradoCare in our state this November. For individuals who are injured at work, the best thing they can do is seek a qualified attorney. Our top rated Denver workers’ compensation attorneys can help injured workers file their claim, get the medical care they need, and help them seek lost wages to help cover living expenses and medical bills.

Original Source

Contact Neil O'Toole and John Sbarbaro

at the Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C.

Phone: 303-595-4777

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

The Binder & Binder bankruptcy

Binder & Binder, a nation-wide firm of advocates for those seeking Social Security disability or Supplemental Security Income benefits, is roughly $40 million in debt and is preparing declare bankruptcy under Chapter 11, according to the Wall Street Journal. 

For those of us who represent clients before the Social Security Administration, this is quite a milestone.

Three years of sharply lower allowance rates have taken their toll. Additionally, backlogs at the hearing offices have increased significantly over the past year, so fewer cases are getting scheduled for hearings. Fewer hearings and lower allowance rates is a nasty combination. Add high overhead and high advertising costs, and you have a recipe for bankruptcy. Here is attorney Charles Hall's take on the Binder situation.

I won't miss Binder. I have heard too many stories from its former clients about the level of representation received. In my opinion, disability claimants are better served by local attorneys who develop a relationship with their clients, have a working relationship with the administrative law judges in their area, and work frequently with the staff at local Social Security offices.

Nevertheless, Binder's apparent collapse is the latest evidence the grim new reality in the world of representing clients before the Social Security Administration. It is a tough time to be representing those claiming Social Security disability benefits. All of us have had to make adjustments in our practice.

For those of you applying for disability benefits, you cannot simply trust the system to do the right thing anymore. Good representation is more important than ever.

12/19/2014 Update: The bankruptcy has been filed. During its Chapter 11 reorganization, Binder projects it will reduce its staff by 60% or so over the next 2 years. 

1/02/2015 Update: More Binder & Binder updates, courtesy of Charles Hall. Apparently Binder has stopped ordering medical records for its clients, which if true, is outrageous. And not surprisingly, a lot ofBinder employees will be losing their jobs.

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.

http://www.otoole-sbarbaro.com

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

Colorado Jurisdiction: - Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C.

From the archives of the Law of Office O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C.

Colorado jurisdiction over injuries suffered outside of the state is conferred by §8-41-204, C.R.S.  This statute provides that Colorado has jurisdiction over out-of-state injuries if the employee was “hired or is regularly employed in this state.”  Whether an employee was “hired … in this state” is a contract question generally governed by the same rules as other contracts.  Denver Truck Exchange v. Perryman, 134 Colo. 586, 307 P.2d 805 (1957).  The essential elements of a contract are competent parties, subject matter, legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.  Id.  The place of contracting is generally determined by the parties’ intention, and is usually the place where the offer is accepted, or the last act necessary to the meeting of the minds or to complete the contract is performed.  Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Apostolou,  866 P.2d 1384 (Colo. 1994).

            In Moorhead Machinery & Boiler Co. v. Del Valle, 934 P.2d 861 (Colo. App. 1996) abrogated on other grounds by Horodyskyj v. Karanian, 32 P.3d 740 (Colo. 2001), the court noted that the rule in Denver Truck Exchange has been tempered so that a contract of hire may be deemed formed, even though not every formality attending commercial contractual arrangements is observed, as long as the fundamental elements of contract formation are present.  See also 1A A. Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law §26.22 at 5-325 (1995)(it is necessary “[to subordinate] contract law technicalities to the reality of the [employment] relationship existing from the time the claimant [began] his journey toward the job pursuant to the overall-contract governing the way hiring is done in this particular employment”).

            The question of whether the claimant has proven the existence of a contract for hire is one of fact for determination by the ALJ.  Rocky Mountain Dairy Products v. Pease, 161 Colo. 216, 422 P.2d 630 (1996).  Similarly, the nature of the last act necessary to complete the contract and its location are generally factual questions for the ALJ’s resolution.

Contact Neil O'Toole and John Sbarbaro

at the Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C.

Phone: 303-595-4777

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