Critical Pieces of Legislation Relating to Compensation - Research Paper Example

number 3 Most Critical Pieces of Legislation Relating To Compensation Summary This paper is about workers compensation act, a law that guides compensation of workers in various situations. It specifies when, why, and under what situations, a worker should be compensated. The law guides provision of compensations in cases of disability, injuries, and sickness due to work related causes. In this paper, compensation has been discussed under three main programs; wage replacement, medical treatment, and vocational rehabilitation. Wage replacement provides guidelines on what qualifies an employee to receive his or her wages when injured in the course of duty. Medical treatment requires that an employer or an employers insurer pay the medical bills and requirements, of an employee injured in the course of duty, or gets sick due to work related factors. Vocational rehabilitation requires an employer to offer rehabilitative services to an employee who gets disabled due to work related factors, and is unable to get employed due to that disability. All these requirements of the law are discussed giving examples of related court cases. The court cases illustrate different situations that arise in workers compensation laws, and provide guidance to employers on what they should do when faced with similar situations. Introduction Pieces of legislation relating to compensation are covered under Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA). This legislation ensures workers are paid their medical, disability, and other related benefits in case one gets ill or gets hurt on the job. The benefits are paid to an employee’s dependents if the employee gets killed on the job. The laws are designed to ensure employees who become injured or disabled are given financial support. These laws also guide employers to provide necessary compensation and avoid the need for litigation (Hwang & Kleiner 70). Some laws also protect the employers by getting rid of liability of co-workers in most accidents, and by limiting the amount an injured employee can be paid. Federal Employees’ Compensation Act is specific to federal employees only, but there are Workers’ Compensation Acts established by each State that guide employers in those States. This paper is focused on discussing the three critical pieces of legislation relating to compensation. Workers’ Compensation Act ensures employees get their benefits through three main programs; medical treatment, wage replacement, and vocational rehabilitation. These three programs are considered the most critical parts of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Hwang & Kleiner 70). Medical Benefits These are payments made by a company’s insurance company to an injured or sick employee, to cure or relieve the effects of the disease or injury. The insurance company is mandated to make payments for medical treatment. The employee can get compensation benefits for a workplace related injury (Phillips & Fox 467). A case illustrating a worker’s medical compensation benefit is Maril Be Van, v. Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation. Be Van worked for Blackfoot Telephone Communications. The company provided for a paid fifteen-minute break in the morning, a paid fifteen-minute break in the afternoon, and an unpaid one hour lunch break. Be Van got an accident one day when she took an early 15 minutes paid break, and went home. Due to this early break, her compensation claim was disputed on the basis that her accident was not within working hours; therefore, the employer and the employer’s insurer denied her compensations. It was, however, established that Be Van was to have an early afternoon meeting that day, which would take the time required for her to have her lunch break. It was also established that she went for an early fifteen minute break because of a scheduled meeting at her lunch break. She sought compensation for her injuries through filing a claim with the Workers Compensation Court. The court concluded that she was injured during a fifteen-minute aid break (Be Van v. Liberty Ins). Lozano v. Archer is also illustrative of medical benefits’ compensation. One relevant point about the case is the evaluation evidence provided by Lozano, that the accidental injuries the claimant sustained rendered him unable to get or retain gainful employment, therefore, had lost his wage earning capability (Lozano v. Archer). Compensation for medical treatment requires proof, for example, in Knight v. Audobon Savings Bank, the petitioner claimed that she got stress related mental disorder from her employer’s screams. New Jersey Superior Court, however, held that the petitioner had to show proof of job related stress to be the cause of her permanent disability. The court found no compensable claim (Knight v. Audobon Savings Bank). Wage Replacement Any illness, injuries, or disease, can result in the absence from work. When lost time occurs, the workers will seek to replace their normal wage with some income in order to support their necessities of living. Employers are required to cater for workers’ compensation insurance, so that if an employee suffers from any work related disease or accident, the employee can receive financial benefits from the insurance company (Viscusi & Moore 249). An employer is required to compensate the employee an equivalent of the employee’s income even from other sources. An example is the case of Jody Vinyard v. Palo Alto, Inc., and Manufacturers Alliance Insurance Company. Jody was hurt in a traffic accident while working for Palo Alto, d/b/a Pizza Hut as a delivery driver. Jody had also been employed as a horse trainer, on 2009 September, on a family business. Jody got injuries in the course of the employment. Jody was, therefore, entitled to Wage replacement benefits, as well as medical treatment benefits (Vinyard v. Palo Alto). It is the responsibility of the employer’s insurer, or the employer to pay the benefits. Jody in this case was entitled to receive compensation benefits covering his wages from both jobs. The problem arose when the parties could not agree on how to compute the aggregate weekly wage, which would then be used to determine the value of the benefits. This is a case illustrating how a worker’s average weekly wage should be properly calculated when a worker holds two jobs concurrently. All wages from all sources should be considered when calculating the average weekly wage. The case clarified a method of calculating the average weekly wage in a situation where a worker’s jobs had different durations and places (Vinyard v. Palo Alto). Other cases in which wage replacement was an issue are; Justiz v. Walgreens, and Justiz, 106 N.M. In Justiz v. Walgreens, the issue was that the petitioner’s earnings had been improperly aggregated. This shows that wages replacements are always faced with challenges on how to calculate worker’s compensation. The Traveler’s Insurance Company and Walgreen appealed against the calculated earnings, but the courts reversed the court of appeals (Justiz v. Walgreens). In Justiz, the issue was whether computation of a worker’s average weekly wage for compensation benefits could be done on the basis of her total earnings, or considering the employment in which she was injured (Justiz). Vocational Rehabilitation Sometimes the employees’ injuries and sickness may cause functional, emotional, developmental, psychological, and cognitive impairments. These can limit their work, making them incapable of doing certain jobs or even going back to their previous jobs. Vocational rehabilitation is a program that offers restoration services so that an employee can regain his or her working capability, to be able to fit in the same earning capacity, or as close as possible to the previous earning capacity. This is always calculated using the employee’s average weekly wage (Granger). According to the Workers’ Compensation Act, employers have a mandate to provide vocational rehabilitation to employees injured on the job, or those who get diseases or illnesses related to their work. Employers or their workers’ compensation carriers, are required to offer employees vocational rehabilitation through various regulatory and statutory responsibilities. Rehabilitation services and the employers’ responsibilities are influenced by the type of injury that an employee gets; for example, an employee may require mandatory rehabilitation counselling services due to the injuries sustained and the amount of time lost from the job. In some cases, the employer is supposed to pay more than regular wage loss benefits. The employer may be required to pay for living expenses, child care services, tuition, and even travel expenses (Hwang & Kleiner 70). As indicated above, each state has its own guidelines on specific programs used to accomplish the objectives of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The cases below illustrate some of the responsibilities of the employers, and limits of the vocational rehabilitation program. In LA County Fire Dept v W.C.A.B. (Norton), Norton got injuries in 1997. This case was resolved with a predetermined award made in 2004. Norton, however, made a request for vocational rehabilitation benefits in 2005. LA County Fire Department, however, did not offer, nor did they provide any benefits. On 2007 March, Norton filed for a request for benefits with the Rehabilitation Unit. Notice that the employers are required to ensure the employee gets these benefits, but LA County did not even respond to Norton’s request. Failure of a company to respond to an employee’s valid requests for compensation leads to prosecution, like LA County Fire Department was sued (LA County Fire Dept v W.C.A.B). Norton’s vocational rehabilitation benefits were disqualified by the Rehabilitation Unit, considering them untimely, but Norton appealed, and the decision was reversed. The county appealed for reconsideration, but this was denied. These events are clear illustrations of what employers would go through in cases relating to workers’ compensations. These cases are specific and depend on the employee’s injuries. Norton had received compensation benefits, but still applied for vocational rehabilitation. It means that not every worker can request vocational rehabilitation. It depends on the injuries and their effect on the worker’s working capability (LA County Fire Dept v W.C.A.B). Powe v. Centerpoint is a case illustrating what happens when an employer provides vocational rehabilitation benefits, and the employee fails to comply. Powe failed to comply with vocational rehabilitation requirements. The services were first suspended, and later terminated. The issue in this case, however was more than the termination of vocational rehabilitation benefits. Powe’s indemnity benefits were also terminated. In its judgement, the Court indicated that the commission had to make specific findings as to the crucial facts that influence the worker’s right to compensation. This was specifically on the existence of her disability, and the extent of her disability. Evidence showed that even though she did not comply with vocational rehabilitation requirements, vocational rehabilitation was ended prematurely and that her non compliance was not reason enough to terminate her other worker compensation rights (Powe v. Centerpoint HS). Hertz Corporation vs. WCAB (Aguilar) case, shows an example of situations in which one cannot receive vocational rehabilitation. In vocational rehabilitation, the employee’s state of being unemployable has to be caused by the injuries or illnesses sustained in the workplace. In some specific cases, however, eligibility for vocational training may be affected by other external factors that render the person unemployable. In Hertzs case, the employee was a Mexican native, but came to work in America in 1980. He worked with Hertz until he sustained the injuries that rendered him totally disabled. The final ruling was that the employee was eligible for vocational training. This was based on his permanent disability status caused in his place of work. The courts also found that his inability to get employment was not entirely due to his permanent disability. He had language proficiency problems, and education problems which affected his ability to benefit from vocational rehabilitation (Hertz Corporation vs. WCAB). Recommendation As an employer, it is advisable to insure workers for any work related injuries. This will benefit both the employee and the employer. The employer will not have to worry about finances when it comes to compensating the employee, and the employee will not have to worry about lack of finances. The employer will also not have to worry about being sued for injuries sustained in the workplace. Insurance covers are sometimes specific and may not include wage replacement, medical treatment, and vocational rehabilitation under one insurance cover. If an employer knows the most critical parts of the workers compensation act, then the employer will know what to include in the insurance cover meant for the employees. Employers need to know that it is their duty to ensure that an employee is compensated as required by the law. This means that the employer should first establish if an employee is fit to receive any compensation that he or she claims. Just as described in the court cases, different situations arise. The employers should therefore, be able to compensate the employees only if they deserve it, and this should first be established. Works Cited Granger, L. Best Practices in Occupational Health, Safety, Workers Compensation and Claims Management for Employers: Assisting Employers in Navigating "The Road to Zero". Boca Raton, Florida: Universal-Publishers. 2010. Print. Hwang, Cathy and Kleiner, Brian H. “Understanding Workers’ Compensation.” Management Research News 25.3 (2002): 65-72. Phillips, Larry. and Fox, Mark A. “Compensation Strategy in Transnational Corporation. Management Decision.” 41.5 (2003):465-476. Print. Viscusi, W. Kip and Moore, Michael J. “Workers Compensation: Wage Effects, Benefit Inadequacies, and the Value of Health Losses.” Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin 50.24 (2006): 249-261. Court Cases Hertz Corporation vs. WCAB (Aguilar). 2014. Web. http://www.mulfil.com/pdf/HertzvWCAB.pdf Knight v. Audobon Savings Bank. Web http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20NJCO%2020120626523 LA County Fire Dept v W.C.A.B. Web. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1525140.html Lozano v. Archer No. 7131. 376 P.2d 963 (1962) 71 N.M. 175. Web. http://www.leagle.com/decision/19621339376P2d963_11316.xml/LOZANO%20v.%20ARCHER Maril Be VAN v. Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation. Web. http://wcc.dli.mt.gov/sccases/bevan_2007mt357.pdf Powe v. Centerpoint Human Services (Powe III). Web. http://www.nwcdn.com/state-news/risk-handling-hint-disability-compliance-with-vocational-rehabilitation?page=news Vinyard v. Palo Alto, Inc., 2013-NMCA-001. Web. https://www.courtlistener.com/nmctapp/5z1v/vinyard-v-palo-alto-inc/ Read More