Workers' Compensation

November 21, 2013

New OSHA Construction Site Safety Rule Targets Occupational Diseases

Boston’s construction industry saw jobs decline by more than 20 percent during the recession. However, all signs indicate that Boston’s construction industry is once again booming, with 8,700 construction jobs added between August 2012 and August 2013. With more construction projects both underway and in the planning phase, this profitable yet dangerous industry is likely to receive more attention for construction site safety practices. The United States Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently released a new construction site safety rule aimed to prevent silica exposure to construction workers. Silica exposure is known to cause severe lung diseases characterized by shortness of breath, cough, fever, and cyanosis (bluish skin).

With more construction projects underway and more construction workers being exposed to job site hazards, this new OSHA construction site safety rule is timely. The rule lowers the legal limit of silica dust that construction workers are permitted to breath by implementing new practices, such as wet cutting and improvements to ventilation. OSHA estimates that nearly 2.2 million workers in the United States are exposed to silica dust, most of which are employed in the construction industry.

Workers who are diagnosed with lung diseases that are caused by working conditions are entitled to Massachusetts workers’ compensation benefits. If the lung condition causes a worker to require medical treatment, the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance company is responsible for 100% of the resulting medical bills, meaning the worker is not responsible for paying co-payments and deductibles which they otherwise would have to pay by using their health insurance. If the work-related lung disease prevents a worker from doing the essential functions of his job, then that worker is entitled to weekly workers’ compensation disability benefits (temporary total disability [60% of Average Weekly Wage for up to 3 years], permanent and total disability [66.7% for life] or partial disability {60% of difference between pre-injury average weekly wage and post injury wages, for up to a maximum of 5 years]). In addition to medical and weekly monetary disability benefits, the employer’s workers’ compensation insurer may be responsible for payment of permanent loss of function benefits.

October 31, 2013

The Effects of the Newly Enacted Workers’ Compensation Law Restricting NFL Player’s Rights to file Claims in California

by Carney Law Firm

In October of 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a new bill that restricts the rights of many former professional athletes from pursuing workers’ compensation benefits in California. It is not often that the topic of workers’ compensation draws the attention of the mainstream media, however given the popularity of the topics of NFL concussions and the rising cost of medical care, this issue has certainly become extremely important to former professional athletes and owners of professional sports franchises alike.

WHY WAS CALIFORNIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SO IMPORTANT FOR NFL PLAYERS?

California has long allowed former players to receive compensation for “cumulative trauma” and has a liberal statute of limitations. Most other states do not recognize cumulative trauma and have very restrictive statutes of limitations. In the past, many former players who either lived or played for teams outside of California and did not begin to suffer the effects of sports related injuries until after the statute of limitations had elapsed in their home state would turn to California as their fall back option, providing them with necessary compensation for medical care. Continue reading

October 25, 2013

Avenues of Compensation for Those Injured While Working for Uninsured Employers (Part 2)

by Carney Law Firm

PART 2 of 2

Part 1 of this blog, discussing workers’ compensation benefits available to those who have been injured while working for an uninsured employer in Massachusetts was published on October 18. Because workers’ compensation only provides limited benefits and often times does not provide adequate compensation for the harm caused by a workplace accident, it is important to thoroughly investigate all possible civil remedies which can provide additional compensation not provided by workers’ compensation laws, such as pain and suffering.

Civil/Third Party Claims

If a general contractor or negligent third party with insurance coverage or reachable assets cannot be identified, the injured worker has the right to recover full tort damages directly from his uninsured employer. Once it has been determined that the employer did not have workers’ compensation coverage on the date of injury, a plaintiff seeking a tort recovery against an uninsured employer must first establish:

1) the employee-employer relationship,

2) the plaintiff was injured, and

3) the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

See. M.G.L. c. 152, §25A; G.L. c. 152, § 66. Continue reading

October 17, 2013

Avenues of Compensation for Those Injured While Working for Uninsured Employers

by Carney Law Firm

PART 1 of 2

Despite Massachusetts’ law mandating nearly all employers to carry workers’ compensation insurance, many Massachusetts’ employers choose to fraudulently conduct business without workers’ compensation insurance coverage in order to increase profits while passing the cost of work-related injuries on to injured workers, their families and taxpayers. There are several potential avenues of compensation for an employee who is injured during the course of his employment with an uninsured employer. Injured workers can file a workers’ compensation claim for wage loss and medical benefits with the Commonwealth’s Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund. A claim for workers’ compensation benefits should be filed against a general contractor who hired the uninsured employer, if one can be identified. Additionally, an injured worker may also bring civil, or “third party” claims against his or her employer, a general contractor and/or any other third parties that may have caused or contributed to the employee’s injury.

Workers’ Compensation Claim

Workers’ Compensation claims involving uninsured employers are governed by the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, 452 C.M.R. 3.04. The first step an employee’s attorney must undertake is to file an “Insurer Request Certification” with the Department of Industrial Accidents in order to verify that the employer did not carry workers’ compensation insurance on the date of the work injury. This form, which can be downloaded at the DIA’s website, certifies to the DIA that the employee and employee’s attorney has attempted to contact the employer to verify whether the employer did in fact have a workers’ compensation policy in effect on the date of the accident. After this has been filed, the DIA Trust Fund should contact the employee attorney requesting that the employee complete and sign a Form 170 (Affidavit of Employee in Application for Trust Fund Benefits). Once the Form 170 has been filed, the employee is then allowed to file his or her claim (Form 110) for workers’ compensation benefits. Continue reading

October 11, 2013

The NFL is Not the Only Big Business in Denial Over Concussions and Brain Injuries

by Carney Law Firm

PBS’ Frontline series received significant attention this week for the premier of “League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis” which premiered on October 8^th at 9:00 p.m. This television program is based on the book of the same title written by Steve Fainaru and Mark Fainaru-Wadu. The authors are both employed by ESPN, however ESPN, who has a broadcast contract with the NFL, refused to get involved with the production of the documentary due to their multi-billion dollar financial interest in the NFL. The documentary and book shed light on the affirmative steps taken by the NFL for the past 20 years to deny any link between head trauma sustained while playing football and brain injury. The authors were able to uncover the truth of the matter, which is that the NFL paid “independent” doctors (who were obviously not independent because they were paid by the NFL) to author reports serving the interests of the NFL by either denying or downplaying the effects that head trauma can cause to the brain.

This story has garnered significant media exposure because the NFL is most popular sport in the United States. However, as any plaintiff’s personal injury or employee’s workers compensation attorney can tell you from first-hand experience, the NFL is not the biggest business or industry in our country that has shamelessly tried to deny or downplay the effects of head trauma to the brain. That distinction belongs to our country’s insurance industry which provides liability and workers compensation insurance to those who may cause brain injuries to others due to their negligent actions, or to employers who employ those who have suffered a brain injury at work. The insurance industry has been denying the link between head trauma and brain injury for even longer than the NFL, the only difference being that the insurance industry has spent tenfold in doing so and in turn saved themselves even more money by denying the link, all at the expense of those who have suffered serious brain injuries.