The Board of Directors of the Yukon Workers Comp Health and Safety Board (Canada) announced that the average assessment rate for 2011 will be significantly lower than the 2010 rate.(WCxKit)
The rate will drop from this year’s level of $2.95 to $2.49 in 2011, a decrease of 15.6% or 46-cents less, per $100 of assessable payroll.
This also means a projected drop in assessment revenues collected in 2011 of just over $4 million.
To be clear, this does not mean an across-the-board decrease in assessment premiums for all employers. Industries that continue to show decreases in the number and severity of injuries are likely to see rate decreases in 2011.
However, those industries who continue to show a lack of due diligence in improving safety and Return-To-Work outcomes in their workplaces are unlikely to see any decreases in their rates.
Specific rates for each of the 69 industries will be announced in the fall.
A major contributing factor to the lower rate is the recent trend in lower claims costs including a 43% reduction in 2009. This puts the time-loss rate per 100 workers covered in 2009 at 2.3. This compares with 2.8 in 2008 and 3 in 2007. The interim goal is a lost-time rate of 1.(WCxKit)
With assistance from its stakeholder partners, this was achieved by a concentrated focus on Return-To-Work – getting injured workers back on the job as safely and quickly as possible, which is good for the employer and aids in the worker’s full recovery. It also shortens the duration or length of time injured workers are receiving time-loss benefits.
YWCHSB has the best results of any jurisdiction in Canada in this category.
The percentage of time-loss claims for which the last payment was made within 90 days from the claim starting was more than 88% in 2009.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
According to the mayor of Montgomery, Alabama, the city simply is not able to provide workers compensation benefits to the family of injured police Cpl. David Brown.
It's been almost two months since Brown was in a pair of serious accidents, and now, his family is suing the city for workers comp for his injuries suffered while at work, according to several Alabama media outlets. (WCxKit)
Brown was critically injured when his motorcycle was struck by a car while he was escorting a funeral procession Sept. 11. Afterward, the ambulance carrying him turned over en route to the hospital.
The family lawsuit claims that Brown's duties that day were done with permission, knowledge and approval of the department and were undertaken for the benefit of the department and citizens of Montgomery.
Mayor Todd Strange said that Brown was not working for the Police Department that day and had a private contract with the funeral home in which the city obtained no compensation.
According to Alabama state law, Brown wasn't technically at work.
Brown was wearing a police uniform, and directing traffic on a police motorcycle in the city's jurisdiction during a funeral at the time of the accident, but Strange says that doesn't qualify the family's request.
“There is a state statue that recognizes that state law enforcement is a unique situation in an off-duty fashion that their uniforms and equipment be in fact used, in an off duty-fashion,” said Strange.
Because of the accident, Brown has suffered permanent disability and presently receives those benefits from the city.
"He will continue to get compensation for life; he gets all the medical for life, so there is a lot of support there,” stated Strange.
But the amount received through disability is notably less than the amount that would reportedly be received through workers comp.
As a result of the accident, Brown has dealt with multiple amputations, broken bones, infections, and bleeding on the brain. (WCxKit)
Brown remains in a coma and is on a ventilator and dialysis.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
The Manitoba government is moving to protect workers from mental harassment.
Labor Minister Jennifer Howard reports new provisions will be made to labor laws address intimidation, bullying and humiliation. (WCxKit)
According to Howard, employers will be required to prevent such actions and to address them if they occur.
Reasonable management actions, including discipline, are not defined as psychological harassment.
"Manitoba now joins other provinces such as Ontario, Saskatchewan and Quebec in requiring employers to provide protection from such harassment," Howard said in a provincial government release. "This builds on other measures that protect workers from harassment based on age, race or gender and ensure that workplaces are respectful and safe for everyone."
Employers will be required to put in place measures to prevent such harassment and address it if it occurs. The province will help develop and implement policies and educate workers and employers about their responsibilities to ensure a respectful and healthy workplace.
The changes are a response to concerns raised during an inquest into the death in 2000 of a worker at the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co. in Flin Flon. (WCxKit)
The province is giving everyone until Feb 1, 2011 to become familiar with and comply with the new requirements.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
The question has been asked: Are there any situations where the employee might elect not to pursue a workers compensation claim or might not have a workers comp claim for a work related injury? The answer is yes. While it is not common for the employee to choose not to have a workers compensation claim, or does not have a workers comp claim by statute, it does happen.
1-Excluded People (no coverage)
When an employer does not meet the state's requirements for workers comp insurance, the employee might not have a workers comp claim. For instance, in the states requiring employers with three or more employees to carry workers comp insurance, and the employer only has two employees, the injured employee would not be able to pursue a workers comp claim.
When the injured employee is the sole proprietor or a partner in the business, s/he will not be covered for a workers comp injury unless s/he buys a workers comp insurance policy on him/herself (which most sole proprietors do not do). (WCxKit)
Another instance where an employee might not be able to pursue a claim is in the states excluding farm laborers, seasonal workers, domestic servants, real estate agents and direct sellers from coverage under the workers comp statutes. When one of these type employees is injured on the job, they still have the right to bring a lawsuit against the employer if they believe the actions of the employer caused their injuries.
2-Pursuing a Tort Claim (want deeper pocket)
In the states where the workers comp insurer has full right to subrogation recovery, the employee will occasionally chose not to pursue the injury claim against the employer. An example of this would be the injury to the traveling salesperson resulting from an automobile accident. The third party was at fault and the accident occurred in a state where the employer controls the selection of the medical provider and the employer/insurer has full subrogation rights.
An attorney representing the injured employee will often tell the employee they can get a much bigger settlement through the tort system than they can through workers comp. Instead of the employee being treated by the medical provider selected by the employer or the employer's insurance company, the employee is treated by a medical provider selected by the employee's attorney.
The attorney, of course, is recommending the liberal medical provider who will keep the employee coming back for additional treatment for as long as the employee is willing to go to the doctor. The reasoning for this is simple, the longer the employee is off work and the higher the medical bills are, the greater the settlement the employee's attorney can demand from the insurer of the vehicle at fault in the auto accident.
Another example of where an injured employee might want to opt out of filing a workers compensation claim is an injury on a construction site. On a large construction project you often find various subcontractors all working at the same time. This will often result in an employee getting injured due to the negligence of a third party. The employee again will have the choice between pursuing the claim for personal injury against the responsible party or filing a workers compensation injury claim. (Of course, in the states where the right of subrogation has been diminished or taken away from the workers comp insurers, the employee's attorney will often pursue both types of claims simultaneously).
A third example of where an employee might choose to pursue a tort claim rather than a workers comp claim is the delivery person who trips and falls on the defective sidewalk belonging to the business where s/he is making a delivery. While a delivery person has the right to pursue a workers comp claim against the employer, the owner of the property where s/he fell has liability insurance, and the award s/he can collect on the tort claim will surpass what can be collected on a workers comp claim. (WCxKit)
Summary
While it is unusual for the employee to opt out of coverage for a workers comp claim, or for coverage not to apply to the work related injury, it does happen. The wise employer will know when this situation is occurring and keep in close contact with the employee in case the circumstances change.
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. is a national expert in the field of workers compensation. She is a writer, speaker and website publisher. Her expertise is working with employers to reduce workers compensation costs, and her clients include airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing.
Contact: RShafer@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
A federal jury awarded close to one million dollars in damages to three sheriff’s officers after finding their commanders discriminated against them and retaliated against the trio when they voiced complaints. The verdict came after four plus days of testimony in U.S. District Court.
According to the Billings Gazette, one deputy was awarded $348,333; while a second deputy and a civil transport officer were each awarded $298,333.
The jury determined a sheriff and two captains discriminated against the three officers, although not because they are Hispanic. The jury also found the three commanders retaliated against the officers for their involvement in human rights complaints and grievances.
The officers filed their lawsuit after one officer filed a state human rights complaint and the other two men agreed to come forward with witness statements on his behalf. The officers’ claim commanders reacted harshly and tried to crush any dissent from them and others. They claim they have had to deal with retaliation and harassment since their complaint was filed.)
The verdict broke down this way:
1. The three officers were harmed as a result of the discrimination and retaliation and were each awarded $100,000 in damages.
2. The jury also found two commanders attempted to dissuade the officers from exercising their free speech rights, and the actions were a practice and custom of the Yellowstone County Sheriff’s Office. As a result, each officer was awarded $150,000.
3. The jury said the violations of the officers’ free speech rights were committed by the defendants and imposed punitive damages of $100,000against one defendant; $30,000 in damages against a second defendant; and $15,000 in damages against the third
Each officer will be awarded an equal share of the total $145,000 in punitive damages, or about $48,000 each.
4. The jury found the Sheriff’s Office breached its duty by failing to adhere to the state Human Rights Act and failed to remedy any employment problems. As a result of that failure, one officer in the trio was awarded another $50,000 in compensation. (WCxKit)
Attorneys for the three men indicated Yellowstone County will also be responsible for paying attorney fees, thus pushing the final cost of the lawsuit to the county to well past $1 million.
It is not known whether the three commanders will be personally responsible for the punitive damages handed down against them or if the county will pay.
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. is a national expert in the field of workers compensation. She is a writer, speaker and website publisher. Her expertise is working with employers to reduce workers compensation costs, and her clients include airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. Contact: RShafer@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
The number of people killed at work in the United Kingdom dropped to a record low last year, according to the Health and Safety Executive, the government’s health and safety enforcement body. (WCxKit)
Between April 2009 and March this year, 152 people suffered fatal injuries on the job. That compares with 179 workplace fatalities the previous year, according to the London-based HSE.
Major injuries, like amputations and serious burns, also dropped among employees to 26,061 compared with 27,894 the previous year.
“It is encouraging to see the further reduction in the number of people being killed or seriously injured at work,” Judith Hackett, chair of the HSE, said in a statement. “The challenge now is to focus on those areas where improvement is slow to emerge,” she added. (WCxKit)
The construction and agricultural sectors still have high levels of accidents and deaths, according to the HSE.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
A few years ago a large national third party administrator (TPA) got into a lot of trouble when a Fortune 500 client noticed some major irregularities in the closing and re-opening of claim files. The client noticed that an abnormal number of claims that were closed were being re-opened by the TPA. The risk manager of the client decided to find out why. (WCxKit)
The TPA had instituted a salary bonus program where adjusters who met different performance criteria received a small monthly bonus. One of the performance criteria was to close as many old claims each month as new claims received. The purpose of this particular performance criteria was to move files to closure as quickly as reasonable. What the adjusters figured out was a way to circumvent the intent of the performance measurement in order to make their numbers look good.
In the last week of each month the adjusters who had not closed as many old claims as new claims received would select files that had little current activity and close them in the computer system. The following week in the new month, the adjusters would re-open the claim files and continue to handle them. Obviously, this was not the proper way to handle file closings.
A workers' compensation claim should not be closed for any reason other than when all known activity to be completed on the file has been completed. If any of the following situations exist on a work comp claim, it should be left open:
1. the employee has not completed all medical treatment
2. the temporary total disability indemnity has been paid and concluded, but the employee is continuing to treat with the medical provider
3. the employee has completed the medical treatment, but all medical bills have not been paid yet
4. the employee has temporary total disability benefits that have not been paid
5. the employee has completed all medical treatment and all medical bills have been paid but the employee is still receiving weekly or bi-weekly payments for permanent partial disability or permanent total disability
6. the widow(er) is still receiving weekly, bi-weekly or monthly death benefits
7. the medical bills have all been paid, all indemnity benefits have been paid, but there are still outstanding bills on the claim for the defense attorney, nurse case manager or other provider of service(WCxKit)
If there is a possibility that another dollar can be spent on the claim, the file should not be closed.
During a recent claim file audit, the worker's compensation claims manager wanted to argue whether or not claims with all indemnity benefits paid, but with on-going medical maintenance treatment should be classified as open or closed. The claims manager had several old-dog files where the employees had permanent medical problems and occasionally went to the doctor. In several of the old-dog claims, the employee was making a once a year visit to the doctor. The claims manager had closed the files and was making payments on the closed files each year. This was another situation where the manager's performance was being evaluated based on the number of files closed.
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. is a national expert in the field of workers compensation. She is a writer, speaker and website publisher. Her expertise is working with employers to reduce workers compensation costs, and her clients include airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. Contact: RShafer@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
The U.S.Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a race discrimination lawsuit against DHL Express Inc. on behalf of a class of African-American employees who were given different job assignments because of their race. Twenty or more charges of discrimination against DHL alleging the shipping and delivery giant discriminated against black workers were received by the EEOC.
An EEOC administrative investigation was conducted under the supervision of Chicago District Director John Rowe, who said the EEOC's investigation found DHL assigned black drivers to predominately black neighborhoods and white drivers to predominately white neighborhoods. “While this may not have been obvious to employees at first, over time, a pattern of segregation emerged,” said Rowe. (WCxKit)
The EEOC's administrative investigation also found DHL assigned more difficult and dangerous work to black employees than to white employees. Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago, added, “Any employer who gives different work assignments to employees simply because of the color of their skin, sends a message to all of its employees that it is by no means colorblind. The concept of 'separate but equal' has long since been rejected. It has absolutely no place on the job. Everyone should understand that federal law — Title VII — expressly forbids the segregation of employees. In this case, as with all of our other cases, the EEOC is looking to ensure that all employees can work in an environment free of discrimination." (WCxKit)
The case, captioned EEOC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on Sept. 24, 2010 and has been designated Civil Action No. 10 C 6139. The government's litigation effort will be led by EEOC Trial Attorney Aaron DeCamp and Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason.
DHL is part of Bonn, Germany-based Deutsche Post DHL, which, according to company information, generated revenue of more than $62 billion (currently about 46 billion Euros) in 2009, and calls itself "the global market leader in the logistics industry."
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
FREE TOOLS
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
Recently, I have been touring operations of various vendors such as an MSA compliance company, nurse triage company, claim intake company and several investigation firms. This is very helpful in understanding the intricacies of these services, enabling me to explain to readers the pros and cons of these services. There's really no substitute to seeing something with my own eyes versus reading sales brochures about it.
One issue I am researching for an article is whether there is an advantage to private labeling workers compensation related services. Do companies prefer private labeled products, do they prefer to make the transaction transparent or don't they care. Or, as is likely the case for many, they do not know some of the services they use may not be owned by their TPA or carrier because the service brochures bear the names of their TPA or insurance company.
Is your company more likely to use services such as nurse triage or nurse case management if they are private-labeled (meaning the vendor has agreed to allow a 3rd party to use their own branding designation) or is there more value in having the servicing provider's identity and qualifications clearly visible? Some carriers prefer to private-label all their products and have all brochures with the same brand, others prefer total transparency. What do YOU prefer?
Please help me explore this issue, by responding to a simple one-question poll. Link Below.
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. is a national expert in the field of workers compensation. She is a writer, speaker and website publisher. Her expertise is working with employers to reduce workers compensation costs, and her clients include airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing.
Contact: RShafer@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
British Columbia's highest court has ordered a transit operator to change its attendance management program in relation to disabled employees after ruling that the program violated the province's Human Rights Code. (WCxKit)
According to Canadian OH&S News, the three-member panel of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia unanimously agreed earlier in October that Coast Mountain Bus Company Ltd discriminated against workers on the basis of disability.
The panel ordered the employer to cease placing employees with disability-related absences in the program. The panel also reinstated awards of $5,000 or $6,000 for "injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect" to six employees who received adverse treatment as a result of their disabilities.
The appeal court's decision largely upholds a February, 2008 decision from the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal which found the attendance management program resulted in "systemic discrimination against employees with chronic and recurring disabilities," except for an order for tribunal-assisted mediation. It also strikes down a Supreme Court of British Columbia ruling from last year in favor of the transit operator.
At the tribunal hearing, transit operators who testified had disabilities such as Crohn's disease, diabetes, bile duct disorder, and osteoarthritis. The adjudicator found that the workers were treated as "attendance problems," with a total of 11 employees terminated under the program. Six successfully grieved their terminations and were reinstated.
"They had a systemic approach to dealing with absenteeism and didn't take into consideration any disabilities or chronic illnesses that our members had on the job," stated Don MacLeod, president of the union representing the workers, the Canadian Auto Workers Local 111. "Each individual has their own medical issues and they're each entitled to be addressed separately because they are all unique."
The case centers on the five-level attendance management program, which begins with the identification of employees with high absenteeism and ends with the potential termination of an employee.
The stages consist of an informal interview; three formal interviews a Level 1 review of attendance record and formal indication of concern; a Level 2 indication of advanced concern and request for medical assessment; and a Level 3 medical assessment follow-up); and an employment status review.
In essence, the appeal court ordered the employer to cease placing employees at Level 3 into the program on the basis of absences due to disabilities. It also ordered the operator to stop including absences due to disabilities into the attendance records of employees who have reached Level 3.
The decision says that during a Level 3 interview, a letter is given to the employee advising that the employer has established specific attendance parameters. If the employee is absent more than a specific number of days in the following two years, the employer may conduct a review of the worker's employment status, "at which time termination of his or her employment for excessive, non-culpable absenteeism will be considered."
The letter adds that in calculating the absence rate, days missed for short-term and long-term disability and workers compensation claims are counted as absences.
"The employee's employment is expressly put in jeopardy if they do not meet attendance parameters that the adjudicator found were invariably set without any regard to any disabilities that the employees may have," the appeal court decision reads.
The program came into existence after an auditor general's report in June, 1997 raised concerns about the absenteeism rate among Vancouver-based transit operators the decision notes. The auditor general discovered that the average annual rate was more than double that of five other North American transit companies.
According to MacLeod, the union filed its first grievance related to the program in 1998. "Through all the 12 years we've been fighting this, we recognized the right to have an attendance management program. Our issue is the way [the employer was] delivering the program," he says. "The way the program used to work was [to] throw everything in the mix. They just threw everything at the wall trying to figure out what would stick at the end of the day," MacLeod charges. (WCxKit)
According to Derek Zabel, a spokesman for Coast Mountain Bus Company, company officials are currently meeting and discussing the decision to gain a better understanding of the issue. "Once we get a better understanding of where we can go we'll make the necessary modifications to make sure that we're compliant and doing things correctly," he noted.
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. is a national expert in the field of workers compensation. She is a writer, speaker and website publisher. Her expertise is working with employers to reduce workers compensation costs, and her clients include airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. Contact: RShafer@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com
FREE TOOLS
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
Posted in
Canada Workers Comp, Insurance Issues, Rates, Premiums, WC in Other Countries (International) |
