Some Issues of Compensation Laws and Legislation - Research Paper Example

3 Most Critical Pieces of Legislation Relating To Compensation Legislations relating to compensation are covered under Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA). This is a program pays survivors, disability, and medical benefits to employees who become ill or get hurt in the job and to the employees dependents if the employee gets killed on the job. The laws are designed to ensure employees who become disabled or injured, are given monetary awards, getting rid of the need for litigation. The laws also provide benefits to the dependents of employees who get killed due to work related illnesses or accidents (United States Department of Labor). 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. There is the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, specific to federal employees only, and there are workers’ compensation acts established by each State. Workers’ compensation act ensures employees get their benefits through three main programs; Medical treatment, wage replacement, and vocational rehabilitation. Each of these programs is specific to each state (United States Department of Labor). 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, however, can get compensation benefits for a workplace related injury. There are also compensations to disabilities arising from injuries or illnesses obtained from the workplace. An employee’s dependents are also eligible for compensation benefits in case of work related deaths (Lozano v. Archer). A case illustrating 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 break was disputed to be 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 the 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 wage replacement 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 must show proof of job related stress to be the cause of the permanent disability. The court found no compensable claim (NMCC). Wage Replacement Any illness, injuries, or disease, can result in the absence from work. When lost time occurs, the worker 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, he can receive financial benefits from the insurance company (Szymendera). 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, and also arose out of the accident. 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, and 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 (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’s appealed against the calculated earnings, but the courts reversed the court of appeals (NMCC, 2012). 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 (NMCC, 2012). Vocational Rehabilitation Sometimes employees get injured or sick and become disabled. Their disability 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; SCWCC). 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 counseling 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 (Mevorah Law). 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. In LA County Fire Dept v W.C.A.B. (Norton), Norton got injuries in 1997 (Jacobsmeyer). 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 (Jacobsmeyer). 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’ compensation. 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 (Jacobsmeyer). 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 judgment, the Court indicated that the commission must make specific findings as to crucial facts that influence the worker’s right to compensation. This was specifically on the existence of her disability, and 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 should not affect 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 is 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, but 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). 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. Hertz Corporation vs. WCAB (Aguilar). “A 100 Percent PD Award Cannot Be Based On Non-Industrial Factors Such As Limited Education Or English Skills”. 2014. Web. http://www.mulfil.com/pdf/HertzvWCAB.pdf Jacobsmeyer, R. M. California Appellate Court Clarifies Vocational Rehabilitation Appeal Rights. 2010. Web. http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/workers-compensation/b/workers-compensation-law-/archive/2010/05/27/california-appellate-court-clarifies-vocational-rehabilitation-appeal-rights.aspx 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 Mevorah Law. “Vocational Rehabilitation Rights of Injured Workers in Illinois”. 2014. Web. http://www.mevorahlaw.com/practice-areas/workers-compensation/workers-compensation-faq/workers-compensation-vocational-rehab.html New Mexico Compilation Commission (NMCC). “In The Court Of Appeals of The State Of New Mexico”. 2012. Web. http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/NMCA/2013/13ca-001.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 “State of Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Commission” (SCWCC). Information Packet. Web. http://wcc.state.ct.us/download/acrobat/info-packet.pdf Szymendera, Scott. The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA): Workers’ Compensation for Federal Employees. 2013. Web. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42107.pdf United States Department of Labor. “Workers Compensation”. 2014. Web. http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workcomp/ Vinyard v. Palo Alto, Inc., 2013-NMCA-001. Web. https://www.courtlistener.com/nmctapp/5z1v/vinyard-v-palo-alto-inc/ Read More