Showing posts with label workers comp claim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label workers comp claim. Show all posts

Friday, December 13, 2013

The Workers Defense Project, a Union in Spirit


LIKE most construction workers who come to see Patricia Zavala, the two dozen men who crowded into her office in Austin, Tex., one afternoon in March had a complaint.

Reworking Labor

Articles in this series examine the changing face of labor as the nation's unions and collective bargaining rights decline.

Related

Erich Schlegel for The New York Times
Luis Rodriguez sought help from the project after he lost part of his finger on a construction job.
The workers, most of them Honduran immigrants, had jobs applying stucco to the exterior of a 17-story luxury student residence. It was difficult, dangerous work, but that was to be expected. What upset them was that for the previous two weeks their crew leader had not paid them; each was owed about $1,000.
Ms. Zavala, the workplace justice coordinator at the Workers Defense Project, listened to their stories and then spent a month failing to persuade the contractors to pay the back wages. So Ms. Zavala, 27, a graduate of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the daughter of a Peruvian immigrant, turned to what she calls the nuclear option: the workers filed a lien on the building site. That legal maneuver snarls any effort to make transactions on the property and sometimes causes banks and investors to freeze financing.
The lien, along with a threatened protest march, quickly got the attention of the dormitory’s developer, American Campus Communities, and the general contractor, Harvey-Cleary Builders. Within hours, Harvey-Cleary arranged a meeting between the stucco contractor and the unpaid workers, and, presto, Harvey-Cleary and the contractor, Pillar Construction, agreed to pay the $24,767 owed to the workers.
“Liens are the very best tool workers have,” said Cristina TzintzĂșn, executive director of the Workers Defense Project. Instead of dealing with subcontractors, she said, “you’re negotiating with the project owner and general contractor. They can no longer shift responsibility and say: ‘I paid the guy downriver. It’s out of my hands.’ ”
The Workers Defense Project, founded in 2002, has emerged as one of the nation’s most creative organizations for immigrant workers. Its focus is the Texas construction industry, which employs more than 600,000 workers, about half of whom, several studies suggest, are unauthorized immigrants.
Immigrant workers, especially those who are undocumented, are especially vulnerable to abuse by contractors. Each year, the Workers Defense Project, which has 2,000 dues-paying members, receives about 500 complaints from workers who say they were cheated out of overtime or denied a water break in Texas’ scorching summer heat or stuck with huge hospital bills for an on-the-job injury.
The Workers Defense Project is one of 225 worker centers nationwide aiding many of the country’s 22 million immigrant workers. The centers have sprouted up largely because labor unions have not organized in many fields where immigrants have gravitated, like restaurants, landscaping and driving taxis. And there is another reason: many immigrants feel that unions are hostile to them. Some union members say that immigrants, who are often willing to work for lower wages, are stealing their jobs.
“The Workers Defense Project is not like a union — it welcomes everyone,” said Luis Rodriguez, a Mexican immigrant who sought the group’s help after he lost a finger in a construction accident. “It is always willing to take in more people and help more people.”
At a recent Workers Defense Project meeting — they are held every Tuesday night — the atmosphere was part pep rally, part educational session, part social hour. After a dinner of tacos, rice and beans, about 60 workers plotted strategy for a demonstration against the developer of a 1,000-room Marriott hotel. A skit mocking the developer drew raucous laughter. The energy and sense of solidarity were reminiscent of what America’s labor unions had many decades ago, before they started to stumble and stagnate.
Worker centers, which are among the most vigorous champions of overhauling immigration laws, coalesce around issues or industries. For example, there is Domestic Workers United, which persuaded New York and Hawaii to enact a bill of rights for housekeepers and nannies, and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, which has gotten most Florida tomato growers to adopt a workers’ code of conduct and to increase pay by at least 20 percent. Young Workers United played an important role in persuading the San Francisco City Council to enact a paid-sick-days law and a minimum wage of $10.55 an hour. With labor unions losing members and influence, these centers are increasingly seen as an important alternative form of workplace advocacy, although no one expects them to be nearly as effective as unions in winning raises, pensions or paid vacations.
“Worker centers are filling a void by reaching out to a work force that is particularly hard to reach out to,” said Victor Narro, a specialist on immigrant workers at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Read the full story here

Contact Neil O'Toole and John Sbarbaro
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

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

The Deadly Symmetry In Work Comp. A Stick With Two Short Ends - The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C.

There is a decades old ongoing discussion in work comp: is it the employer or employee who benefits or loses? The answer: both.


Neither Employer of Employee Are “Winners” in Work Comp

Neither the employer (who, ultimately, pays for everything) nor the employee (who has substantial net wage loss in nearly every claim) can be said to “win”, no matter what the outcome. “Winning”, to most people, means emerging undamaged, but the net losses in comp sometimes remain unknown to the parties until years later.

The most perfidious feature of work comp laws is the “substantial evidence” rule, which permits a comp board ruling to be unreviewable on questions of fact and medical opinion if it is supported by “substantial evidence”, which, in fact, is defined as “a scintilla of evidence”, which is hardly substantial at all.

So what? Well, it means that a typical comp system can make inconsistent rulings on a large group of claims, but each will be based on “substantial evidence” even though the rulings in bulk are contradictory. Comp systems have noticed this since the beginning, and so have the lowliest ALJs, who quickly realize that they are shielded from review, except on questions of law, not fact.  So, no matter who might win a particular claim, all can become the next victim of “substantial evidence”.


Case Law Decisions Lead to Predictable Outcomes Most of the Time

But “a scintilla of evidence” is not a rule which demands the best of any system. It leads to decisions which erode into predictable outcomes most of the time, warranted or not, punctuated by irrational outcomes for no apparent reasons. One NY comp case, in the 1980s, was so inexplicable that it made a list of outrageous decisions which was published in the Readers’ Digest.

The comp claim involved a high school teacher who was so “stressed” by work that he shot and killed the principal. And then went on to win a max rate “stress claim”. This was upheld by the highest court in NY based on “substantial evidence”. The principal’s widow, in turn, had no problem winning a death claim, also based on – “substantial evidence”.

Therefore, neither party got the “short end” since both “won”.

If the result of a claim is only measured by who got money or who did not, the real “winners” and “losers” can never be identified. In the above high school case, what was the true effect on workplace morale? Was it ever considered?  What was the successor principal faced with in terms of maintaining discipline and integrity in the school system?
 By  
And what did the attorneys representing workers do with that decision? For years it was routinely cited as authority for “all doubts are resolved in the worker’s favor”, although what doubt was in that claim is difficult to imagine.

The teacher later gave an interview to a newspaper, after his win in the highest court, complaining of the “stress” the litigation had subjected him to.

So who wins every comp claim? Everyone but the employer and employee.


Editor Michael B. Stack, CPA, Director of Operations, Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. is an expert in employer communication systems and part of the Amaxx team helping companies reduce their workers compensation costs by 20% to 50%. He is a writer, speaker, and website publisher. www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com. Contact: mstack@reduceyourworkerscomp.com.  

©2013 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law.

Original Source

The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. can help you with your workers' compensation or 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


Monday, September 9, 2013

Commission Keeps Claimant's Counsel and Recording Devices out of Employer's Medical Evaluations

September 5, 2013
by Merrilee Harrell 
A recent decision of the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission concluded that claimant’s counsel may not attend and record an employer’s independent medical evaluation (EME) unless the examining physician consents. InASRC Energy Services, Inc. v. Kollman, AWCAC Decision No. 186 (August 21, 2013), the Commission reversed an interlocutory decision of the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board that injured worker Jeffrey Kollman may record an EME and have a witness present despite the objection of the employer’s physicians. Kollman v. ASRC Energy Services, Inc., AWCB Decision No. 13-0076 (June 27, 2013). The Board had relied onLangfeldt-Haaland v. Saupe Enterprises, 768 P.2d 1144 (Alaska 1989), which held that a civil litigant had a right to record a court-ordered Rule 35 medical evaluation and have his attorney present during the evaluation. On appeal, the Commission noted that Civil Rule 35 is significantly different from AS 23.30.095(e) of the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act. AS 23.30.095(e) states that “The employee shall... submit to an examination by a physician or surgeon of the employer’s choice...” which, the Commission noted, leaves the choice of EME physician exclusively with the employer. A Rule 35 medical evaluation, in contrast, may be ordered by a judge “only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice... to all parties and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.” 
The Commission also noted that Langfeldt-Haaland was a 3-2 decision that explicitly limited its holding to Civil Rule 35 medical evaluations. The majority had argued the importance of allowing counsel to “observe shortcomings and improprieties during the examination which could be the subject of inquiries on cross-examination at trial; and ... [to] object to questions posed to the plaintiff during the examination that concern privileged information.” The dissenting judges pointed out that “adopting such a rule could have a chilling effect on otherwise reputable physicians performing medical examinations.” The Commission found the dissent’s position more persuasive, and also took into account a survey of SIME physicians that showed a significant percentage of the physicians surveyed would decline to perform evaluations if they were required to allow the evaluation to be witnessed and recorded. Requiring EME evaluations to be witnessed and recorded would thus have a chilling effect on the employer’s choice of physician if the employer’s choice was limited by such a requirement.  
The commission emphasized that the plain language of AS 23.30.095(e) gives the employer the exclusive choice of EME physician, noting that the statute “does not say that the choice of an EME physician is exclusively the employer’s, provided that the employer chooses a physician who would allow witnessing and recording of the EME.” The commission concluded that such a restriction would interfere with the employer’s choice of physician as contemplated by AS 23.30.095(e). Kollman has appealed the Commission’s ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court.

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

Friday, September 6, 2013

Employers: Know Your Work Comp Claims – Or Else! - Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. Worker's Comp Blog

By  

In comp claims, there is no substitute for knowledge of the facts. Not just the underlying facts about the injury, but the facts about how the claim is being handled.

Last week, an employer who was experiencing a rash of dubious comp injury reports had received no information from the comp board or the carrier on how the claims were being handled. The employer was also required by federal law to monitor employee injury reports and make sure that the employees could safely operate heavy vehicles. The employer, therefore, wanted to review the claim folders before the comp board, which, in NY, it has the right to do.


Employer Needs To Be Proactive To Obtain Information

But the employer did not have the board file numbers for the claims. A phone call to the carrier elicited no cooperation whatsoever. “Why do you want to know the claim numbers? Sorry, we don’t have them.” (Two of the claims were over a year old and had been to hearings.)

The employer was pleased to discover that the files could be located without the WCB number and without the carrier’s assistance or approval. The employer, however, was disturbed at the carrier’s attitude. Why shouldn’t an employer have access to the facts?

In NY, employers, until recently, were automatically notified of hearings and the the results. To be sure, that is only a bare minimum but it is a lot better than nothing. But if we go back even farther we come to a time when the carrier did not even attend hearings – just the employer. And the law has not changed since then. The employer has been gradually removed from the claim process until it has far less access to information than any other party in the process.


Employer Has Right To Full Access Of Claim Information

An employer has every right to full access to the information in a claim folder and does not need anyone’s permission to get it. But what should it do if its carrier doesn’t see things that way?

Obstructions on the information highway are like obstructions on a vehicular freeway. Don’t try to go over them or through them – and don’t put on the brakes and sit in the middle of the traffic. Instead, slow down and cautiously drive around them.

A carrier who tells an employer, “Why do you want to know?”, is inviting short pithy replies. A perfectly acceptable response might be, “Because I’m the only one paying for all this”, even if it fails to arouse sympathy. A better one is, “Because the law makes me, not you, primarily responsible for poor claim performance and harm to my workers”.

Raw information is so valuable that it is worth nearly any effort to obtain it. The employer should also be aware there are many laws that require the information that the employer needs. Comp claim information is needed for proper handling of unemployment claims, discrimination claims, private disability claims, tax matters, ERISA, ADA, FMLA, as well as a host of other laws. So an employer who is asked, “Why do you want to know”, is speaking with someone who is unaware of the comp law since its very beginnings, not to mention all the other laws passed since then.


Don’t get mad. Be patient, ask others to assist – and get the information

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