Category Archives: Legislation

Trump Lifts His Middle Finger to Injured Workers

It didn’t take long for Trump to deceive injured workers.  Despite campaign promises to help “middle class” workers,  Trump signed legislation relaxing the reporting requirements for employers when workers get hurt or ill due to their jobs.  Trump and the Republicans rolled back a rule issued by former President Barack Obama.  By ending the rule, Trump and Republicans effectively shortened the amount of time employers in dangerous industries have to keep accurate records of worker injuries – from five years to just six months.  The Republican-controlled Congress used a little-known legislative tool known as the Congressional Review Act to repeal the Obama regulation last month.  Democrats were incensed.  By signing the bill, Trump can legally prevent the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from requiring a similar rule in the future.

Labor leaders and workplace safety experts warn that the rollback of the OSHA recordkeeping rule will allow unscrupulous companies to cheat on their injury data and conceal ongoing hazards from OSHA regulators.  That concealment could make it harder for OSHA to identify recurring problems at certain employers and industries.  Debbie Berkowitz, a former OSHA policy adviser and advisor to the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group (WILG), now with the National Employment Law Project, indicated “This will give license to employers to keep fraudulent records and to willfully violate the law with impunity.” 

It was only a matter of time before Trump showed his disdain for injured workers and his true allegiance to business.

MORE changes to Work Comp: Elimination of Court Reporters & Appeals Commission?

Budget Bill Proposes Eliminating Court Reporters

Wisconsin’s Governor recently proposed significant changes to Wisconsin’s best-in-nation worker’s compensation system.  For the second budget cycle in a row, the Governor’s Budget Bill wants to drastically change the structure of worker’s compensation cases.

The Budget Bill, revealed on February 8, 2017, proposes two main changes : (1) the elimination of court reporters in litigated worker’s compensation trials; and (2) the elimination of the independent body that reviews judge decisions.

A base level concern exists, again, because these proposals were made outside the stabilizing force of the Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation Advisory Council.   As mentioned at length in this forum, the Advisory Council, with its balanced membership of labor and management representatives, has produced reasoned, incremental changes historically–creating a beneficial system for all stakeholders.  Hopefully the Advisory Council will weigh in on the other potential effects of the unveiled Budget Bill proposals.

Each of the proposals significantly impact the state’s work comp system:

Elimination of Court Reporters:

The Budget proposes eliminating the use of statutorily-required stenographic court reporters in worker’s compensation trials.  The specific proposal is to eliminate necessary court reporters (who ensure decorum in the court room, properly manage exhibits, make sure parties do not talk over each other, and create an accurate and legitimate transcript) in exchange for some type of ill-defined audio recording equipment.

Employers and carriers in our state—facing six to seven figure exposures—will have concerns about facing such liability based on questionable audio technology.  Imagine if at a critical point in trial, a witness talks to softly or inaudibly, resulting in a blank area in the transcript.  No stakeholder wants this, and our live court reporters ensure that it does not.

Also, the circuit court (and further appellate courts) want an accurate, undisputed transcript of the lower trial proceedings.   If the audio is poor, unclear or inaccurate, we may be forced to re-litigate the trial.  A redo will increase system costs.  Further, if court reporters are eliminated, the private parties will bear the costs by hiring their own court reporters.  We then may face disputes about the “real” transcript between the state’s audio recording (which will need to be transcribed for appeals) and the privately-hired court reporter transcript.

Wisconsin is not alone in its use of court reporters in worker’s compensation trials, as an informal poll revealed the use of court reporters in IN, PA, CT, IA, NC, MT, NE, WY, SC, CA, MA, GA, KS, IL, LA, NY, WA…and the list goes on.

Near universal opposition exists to this unnecessary proposal to eliminate live court reporters.  The State Bar litigation section board voted unanimously to oppose this proposal.  Moreover, all of the three main groups of attorneys that represent clients in worker’s compensation proceedings oppose this proposal.   The Wisconsin Defense Counsel (defense attorneys), the Wisconsin Association of Justice (injured worker attorneys), and the Wisconsin Association of Workers’ Compensation Attorneys (bi-partisan group) jointly drafted a letter to the Governor voicing their opposition (PDF link).

All parties to litigation want a fair and accurate depiction of the trial proceedings, and court reporters help secure that justice.  This proposal faces stiff opposition.

Elimination of the Appeals Commission

Traditionally, the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) is an independent body of three political appointees that rule on worker’s compensation, unemployment, and equal rights appeals.  The cases are litigated in front of administrative law judges and then the appeal is to LIRC, who have a virtual de novo review.  The appeal from LIRC is direct to circuit court, which has a very deferential standard and will uphold the LIRC decision if there is any “credible and substantial evidence.”  Barring a legal issue, the circuit court upholds the factual and credibility findings of LIRC.

LIRC has been in existence in some form since the inception of the worker’s compensation act in 1911.  LIRC actually serves to define much of the worker’s compensation case law—for over one hundred years.  When I look at our treatise, I’d guess 80% of the cited cases are LIRC cases.  Judges use the LIRC decisions in making determinations.

The current Budget proposal is the complete elimination of LIRC.  However, as opposed to a direct appeal from a judge determination to circuit court, the proposal is to substitute the Division Administrator for LIRC.  Thus, litigants would trial cases to the administrative law judge, with an appeal to the state Division of Hearings and Appeals Administrator (currently Brian Hayes) as the intermediate level of appeal.  Appeal from the Administrator’s decision would be to circuit court–with no apparent change in the standard of review by circuit court.

The upshot is to give much authority and discretion back to the actual administrative law judges–the ones who actually observed the witness and heard the evidence.  One of the statutory proposals indicates that the “findings of fact” by the judge “shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive.” That appears to give even less discretion to the Administrator’s ability to review judge decisions.

There is much ambiguity about the reasoning behind these proposals, as well as the potential impact.  I’ve already heard from a number of individuals that the proposal comes from issues within the unemployment insurance arena (and unemployment appeals fill up the majority of LIRC’s docket).  If true, worker’s compensation appeals are being swept up with the issues within unemployment.

However, if implemented, the practical effects are drastic.  Presumably, the Division Administrator would likely be more deferential to the sitting administrative law judges (i.e., approve more ALJ decisions) and probably produce a faster appeal turnaround time than the current LIRC process.   The catch is that it remains unknown how the Adminstrator would handle the influx of worker’s compensation appeals. Would there need to be additional staff?  (if so, budgetary costs need to be considered).  If no new staff, the simple time constraints lead to the likelihood of rubberstamping judge determinations.

In the future though, the Administrator position changes.  Future appointees could have their own political proclivities that could impact the system.  Also, the proposal may have just eliminated 100 years of case law as guidance for future judicial determinations.  The budget is devoid of what happens to the precedential value of past LIRC decisions.

Accordingly, further details really need to be revealed about the proposed plan before the stakeholders can weigh in.

One further item is known, based on the intersection of the two proposals.  If the system eliminates LIRC and provides more deference to the underlying judge determination, the value of court reporters increases exponentially.  If the judge factual determination is conclusive, a reviewing circuit court certainly wants an accurate, credible, and decipherable transript of those all-important findings.

We will explore the further Budget process and these proposals as they progress…

For further information:

The full statutory text of the Budget Bill (2017 Assembly Bill 64/ 2017 Senate Bill 30) can be found here, with a summary found here.

The Cancer Presumption in Workers’ Compensation

What is a legal presumption? 

Can a legal presumption be rebutted by sufficient contrary evidence?

Wisconsin workers’ compensation law contains many presumptions. For example, for firefighters, it is presumed that if a firefighter has cancer, the cancer is employment-related. The Statute applies to any State, County, or Municipal firefighter who has worked for ten years with at least two-thirds of the working hours as a firefighter who has cancer of the skin, breast, central nervous system, or lymphatic, digestive, hematological, urinary, skeletal, oral, or reproductive systems. For that firefighter whose disability or death is caused by cancer, the cancer diagnosis is presumptive evidence that the cancer was caused by employment. However, no presumption exists for firefighters who smoke cigarettes or use tobacco products for claims after January 2001. (Wis. Stat. §891.455 Presumption of Employment Connected Disease: Cancer)

Other presumptions in Wisconsin law include a presumption that a youthful worker (under age 27) is presumed to be able to earn the maximum wage rate by the time he reaches age 27, for purposes of Permanent Partial Disability, disfigurement, or death. For example, a McDonalds burger-flipper earning $10 per hour who has a severe burn is presumed (instead of the $200 or $300 he actually earns per week) to be earning $1,400 per week under the Youthful Age Presumption. Evidence of the worker’s likely inability to earn the maximum wage (due to cognitive or academic deficiency or similar lower earning work history) can be used to rebut the presumption and therefore limit the maximum Permanent Partial Disability or disfigurement award.

In a recent cancer case, the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation board found a firefighter cannot receive workers’ compensation benefits for prostate cancer because he failed to show his cancer was work-related despite a statutory presumption for firefighters. The firefighter began working for the City of Philadelphia in the 1970s and retired in 2006 after a diagnosis of prostate cancer. He filed a workers’ compensation claim saying his cancer stemmed from carcinogens he was exposed to while working as a firefighter, such as diesel fumes from fire trucks, second hand tobacco smoke from co-workers, and smoke from burning debris he encountered while fighting fires. Note he also acknowledged he smoked an average of a half pack of cigarettes daily since the 1960s. His doctor’s testimony that his carcinogen exposure caused the prostate cancer was rebutted by the City’s physician indicating that prostate cancer is typically more of a “disease of aging than it is of external influence.” The Judge, in denying the claim, noted “Any elevated risks for prostate cancer among firefighters might also be explained by other factors, such as detection bias, ethnicity and geography.”

The cancer presumption in Wisconsin (for non-smoking firefighters) would be more difficult to rebut, but factors such as family history may prove the “other evidence” necessary to rebut the presumption.

Fault: Creeping Back Into Workers’ Compensation

Workers’ Compensation is a compromise. As originally crafted in 1911 and as interpreted, Wisconsin Workers’ Compensation is a compromise in which both employers and employees surrender certain advantages in order to gain others that are deemed more important. Employers give up the immunity that would otherwise apply in cases where they were not at fault and employees surrender their former right to full damages in the few instances when they could recover under tort law and instead accept more modest assured benefits for injuries and deaths (without having to prove fault).

The concept of negligence should play no role whatsoever in the workers’ compensation system. The doctrine of liability without fault is part of the compensation system; the 1911 legislature attempted to guarantee payments by the employer for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. The economic burden shifted from the employee to the consuming public.  

Traditionally, the only vestiges of fault and negligence that remained in Wisconsin involved penalties involving employer or employee safety violations. If an employee was hurt because of the employer’s safety violation, the benefits to which the worker was entitled were increased by 15% and paid directly by the employer. Similarly, if the employee committed a safety violation causing injury, benefits from the insurance carrier or self-insured employer could be reduced by 15%. 

Recent revisions in the law, effective March 2, 2016, chip away at the “Grand Bargain,” the legislative deal made in 1911 where workers surrendered all rights to sue their employers for negligence in return for which the employer paid for work-related injuries regardless of fault. 

An employee who had sustained a work-related injury and would return to work for an employer has always received the protection of the Workers’ Compensation Statute. Even if the employee was terminated for good cause during a post-injury healing, he was entitled to continued receipt of Temporary Total Disability benefits (2/3 of time-of-injury wages). However, effective March 2, 2016, a new Statute now states that if an employee is discharged or suspended for misconduct or substantial fault, as these terms are defined by the Unemployment Compensation statutes, the employee’s Temporary Total Disability benefits could be suspended. The legal standard for what constitutes “sufficient grounds for termination for misconduct” and “substantial fault” will be defined by the Unemployment Compensation Law (These are employer-friendly changes that were implemented in the UC system in 2014). 

Going forward, administrative hearings in both the Unemployment Compensation and Worker’s Compensation forums will occur. The issue of whether a decision binding on one forum will be binding on another remains to be seen.  A worker could face the “double whammy” of being denied benefits in both the workers’ compensation and unemployment compensation case.

Additionally, the new law indicates that an employee who violates an employer’s drug and alcohol policy at the time of injury (where the violation is causal to the injury) is not entitled to anydisability benefits under the Workers’ Compensation system. This harsh 100% penalty is a substantial change from the now pedestrian 15% diminution that formerly applied to injuries before March 2, 2016.

Lastly, the new law allows apportionment of Permanent Partial Disability in cases of traumatic injuries between that permanency caused by the work injury and that “caused by other factors.” The statute is silent as to the meaning of the term disability, or “other factors,” and the problems raised by the possible interpretations of these terms will be determined in subsequent court decisions.

The net result will clearly be more disputes in the supposedly “no fault” compensation system—likely resulting in more litigation and potentially raising the cost of workers’ compensation for all stakeholders.


1. 2015 Wis. Act 180 (effective March 2, 2016) made significant changes to the workers’ compensation law—for employers and employees.  This blog will explore those changes in a series of upcoming posts.

NEW LAW: Wisconsin Enacts Worker’s Compensation Changes

It’s official. The Wisconsin legislature and Governor recently approved amendments to the worker’s compensation system in our state. We have a new law.

The bill arose from the Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation Advisory Council—the historically stabilizing group, consisting of members of labor and management.  The Advisory Council bill produced common sense reforms and improvements to the worker’s compensation system. A competing bill (informally known as the “work comp destruction bill”) never even received a hearing. In stark contrast, the legislature demonstrated support for the Advisory Council recommendations by unanimously passing the bill (Senate vote was 32-0 and Assembly vote was 97-0), and Governor Walker continued that support by swiftly signing the Council recommendations into law.

The new changes are 2015 Wisconsin Act 180. The bill is effective March 2, 2016.

Importantly, the new bill does not alter the underpinnings of the worker’s compensation “grand bargain”, whereby employees gave up the right to sue in court in exchange for scheduled, fixed benefits without having to prove fault.  Additionally, the new law does not affect an employee’s right to choose their own medical doctor and care, nor does the law impose any type of major medical fee schedule.

The Advisory Council bill was a compromise, as per usual, with provisions that benefit workers and employers. Among the major highlights of the new law:

  • Increased PPD Benefits. An injured worker’s maximum weekly benefits for permanent partial disability (PPD) will increase $20 to $342/week for injuries on/after March 2, 2016, and to $362/week for injuries in 2017.
  • Greater Access to Retraining Benefits. Injured workers with permanent limitations that do not allow a return to the time-of-injury employer can pursue academic retraining benefits (weekly maintenance benefits while in school, along with tuition, books, meals, and mileage). Traditionally, a hearing could not be held until the worker actually was enrolled and taking classes, which could be financially prohibitive when a worker is off work with no income. The new law allows a Judge the authority to issue prospective orders for future retraining benefits before the worker is in school.
  • Allowance for Working while in School. A worker pursuing an academic retraining program will be allowed to work up to 24 hours/week without those wages reducing any weekly worker’s compensation maintenance benefits.
  • Statute of Limitations Reduction for Traumas.  The statute of limitations, running from the date of injury or date of last compensation payment, for traumatic injuries only is reduced from 12 years to six (6) years. The statute of limitations for occupational exposure claims is not changed—remaining at 12 years.
    We anticipate that the traumatic injury statute of limitations change does not apply retroactively, meaning the new 6 year statute of limitations applies to traumatic injuries beginning March 2, 2016.
    The impact of this change will play out in the future. The potential for increased litigation exists as workers file hearing applications to protect their medical treatment expense benefits. For example, if a worker has a knee injury in April 2016 with arthroscopic surgery one month later, all disability benefits paid by the end of 2016, and that worker continues to have periodic difficulties ultimately resulting in a proposed knee replacement in 2023, they may be time-barred if no hearing application was filed within 6 years (or the end of 2022). If barred, those expenses are shifted to the worker, group health insurance, or the government.
  • PPD Apportionment. If a worker suffers a traumatic injury resulting in permanent partial disability (PPD), a physician’s report on PPD shall include a determination of the approximate percentage of PPD caused by the work injury along with the percentage attributable to “other factors” before or after the work injury. A worker, upon request, shall disclose any/all previous findings of permanent disability or impairments that are relevant to the work injury. The provision does not apply to occupational exposure injuries and does not mandate that a physician must find some percentage attributable to other factors (i.e., the entire functional PPD percentage can be attributable to the traumatic work event).Heavy litigation is likely given the provision’s ambiguity. By intent, it appears the language is restricted to functional PPD. The provision should not upset the “as is” rules on legal causation of an injury itself. Additionally, it does not appear the provision would affect liability for temporary total disability, medical expenses, retraining benefits, or potential loss of earning capacity or permanent total disability benefits.Litigation likely will occur over the type of competent evidence necessary to constitute “other factors” apportioning a PPD award. With the worker disclosure requirement, one could argue that only documented, ratable disability findings can be used, as opposed to a doctor’s speculation regarding pre-existing condition (e.g., a worker’s complaint of pre-existing sporadic low back pain is different than a pre-injury accident that resulted in a lumbar fusion procedure with a paid 10% PPD).
  • Lost Time Benefit Denial for Misconduct Terminations. Previous law, under the Brakebush case doctrine, allowed a worker to receive lost time benefits (Temporary Total Disability, or TTD) during a healing period even if they had been terminated for misconduct or allegedly valid reasons by the employer. The new law effectively puts an end to components of the Brakebush doctrine.Temporary disability benefits can be suspended when an employee is released to limited duty post-injury and subsequently is suspended/terminated for “misconduct” or “substantial fault,” as defined under the unemployment insurance law (Chapter 108). Based on the statutory language, TTD benefits, however, are still payable if a worker is completely off work in the healing period, per their physician.These terms “misconduct” and “substantial fault” were recently included in the unemployment laws with specific statutory definitions:
    • “Misconduct” is conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in (1) deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior that an employer has a right to expect of his or her employees; or (2) carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design in disregard of the employer’s interests or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of an employer’s interests or of an employee’s duties and obligations to his or her employer.
    • “Substantial Fault” equals acts or omissions of an employee over which the employee exercised reasonable control that violate reasonable requirements of the employee’s employer, but not including minor infractions, inadvertent errors, or failure to perform work due to insufficient skill, ability, or equipment.
    With the worker’s compensation act now referring to the unemployment rules for the definitions of both terms, the possibility exists for the worker’s termination to result in the cessation of both worker’s compensation and unemployment benefits.
    The exact interpretation of these terms and the legitimacy of terminations will play out through litigation—and presumably a significant amount of litigation.
  • Benefit Denial for Alcohol/Drug Violation. All indemnity benefits are precluded if an employee violates an employer’s consistently enforced drug policy concerning alcohol or drug use when there is a direct causation between the violation and the worker’s injury. The worker, however, can still recovery/pursue medical treatment expenses.Previous law allowed a potential reduction of a worker’s benefits by 15% if an injury was the result of intoxication or the use of controlled substances.Notably, the new provision is a large injection of “fault” concepts into the otherwise no fault system undergirding the grand bargain of worker’s compensation.
  • Fraud Prevention. Worker’s Compensation Department (at DWD) will fund one Department of Justice position to assist in investigating and prosecuting any “fraudulent” claim or “fraudulent activity” on the part of any player in the worker’s compensation system (insurance carrier, employer, employee, or health care provider)
  • Electronic Medical Records. The cost for certified medical records in “electronic format” is fixed at a maximum of $26 per request.
  • Physician Drug Dispensing. Prescription drug dispensing outside of a licensed pharmacy (i.e., physician dispensing) are limited to the existing pharmacy fee schedule and pharmacist dispensing fee.
  • Review of Minimum PPD Ratings. The new law requires the Department to create a medical advisory committee, consisting of various areas of medical specialization, to review and revise the minimum functional PPD ratings found in the Administrative Code every eight years.

Change can mean uncertainty. A number of the statutory enactments and effects will be seen over time and through the litigation process. The key is that the Advisory Council process worked, continuing its vital role in Wisconsin’s beneficial and efficient worker’s compensation system.

Advisory Council Bill Is A Compromise …But The Alternative Is Chaos

Those of us representing injured workers were recently forced into a somewhat difficult decision regarding proposed changes to Wisconsin workers’ compensation law.  As discussed in prior posts, two parallel bills were proposed, one sponsored by the Workers’ Compensation Advisory Council (SB-536 / AB-724) and one sponsored by Republican Representative Spiros (AB-501)  The Spiros bill—aka the worker’s compensation destruction bill —would have completely altered the nature of 100 years of workers’ compensation in Wisconsin, adding the concept of “fault” back into a no-fault system that has been operating based on that premise for a century.  Additionally, the work comp destruction bill would have reduced the Statute of Limitations for filing the claim and claiming medical benefits on the claim from the current twelve years to an incredibly harsh two years. 

The agreed-upon Advisory Council Bill (WCAC bill) also contains benefits for injured workers as well as employer-friendly provisions, some coming at the expense of injured workers. For example, employees who are fired for misconduct or substantial fault could be denied workers’ compensation benefits based upon a definition of misconduct imported from the Unemployment Compensation system. Unemployment Compensation law defines misconduct as a worker showing such a willful disregard of an employer’s interest to be a deliberate violation, or carelessness or negligence showing wrongful intent suggesting an intentional substantial disregard of an employer’s interests. Quite simply, under this provision, injured workers might lose their jobs because of misconduct or substantial fault, thus losing out on both Unemployment Compensation and Workers’ Compensation benefits.

Additional provisions of the WCAC bill would deny benefits to those workers whose injuries have been caused by the use of alcohol or drugs. The Statute of Limitations reduced from twelve to a reasonable six years for traumatic injuries.  Significantly, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier can now ask for medical support to apportion pre-existing disability, which should trigger a substantial increase in litigation. 

Some would suggest that the Advisory Council bill is not “worker-friendly.” It is more appropriately viewed as a COMPROMISE. Labor and management representatives bargained for the changes. The Advisory Council bill is the result of give-and-take compromise and an acknowledgement by labor of the current political reality in Wisconsin.   In any compromise, parties get and give up certain things.  This compromise is the stabilizing force for the successful worker’s compensation system in our state. Lone wolf legislation without consideration by the compromises of the Advisory Council should be rejected. 

Support the Advisory Council process and Agreed-Upon Bill.

Work Comp Advisory Council Officially Produced an Agreed-Upon Bill

As anticipated, on December 22, 2015, the Worker’s Compensation Advisory Council (WCAC) approved its Agreed-Upon Bill.  The official statutory language and bill summary can be found here. The bill now goes to the Wisconsin legislature for consideration and, hopefully, passage.

Production of this Agreed-Upon bill underscores the success and stabilizing hand of the Advisory Council.  The WCAC, composed of members of labor and management (including the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce), typically produced a biennial “agreed upon” bill for approval by the Legislature. The WCAC produces reasoned, incremental changes that maintain the stability of the system for all stakeholders—employers, carriers, and workers.  The WCAC immunized the substance of the Wisconsin WC system from partisan politics and election cycle swings commonly found in other states.

The Advisory Council bill deserves full support of all Wisconsinites that care about our nationally respected worker’s compensation system.  There is, however, lone wolf legislation floating about.  We previously talked about a bill (being pushed by Rep. John Spiros, head of the Trucking Industry Defense Association) that is properly seen as the “worker’s compensation destruction bill.” These ideas in the Spiros-led bill (AB-501) were NOT considered or vetted by the Advisory Council.  The Council protects against just this sort of unchecked effort—protecting against random or crackpot ideas from severely damaging the reputable system.

In stark contrast, the Advisory Council carefully considered changes and produced a reasoned bill that improves or system and benefitsall stakeholders, especially the employers of our state.  Indeed, some “employer-friendly” provisions include the following:

  • A worker’s violation of alcohol or drug policy (if causally related to the injury) denies benefits.
  • No lost time benefits (TTD) if terminated for good cause (using recent unemployment standards)
  • A reasonable and manageable reduction in statute of limitations from 12 to 6 years.
  • Establishing a Dept of Justice position for investigating/prosecuting WC fraud.
  • Apportionment of functional PPD payments, so employers not responsible for pre-injury disability amounts.

Workers also have some incremental, important benefits in the Agreed-Upon bill.  The permanent partial disability payments receive slight annual increases.  Workers also will be allowed to work a certain amount of hours while pursuing academic retraining without having a decrease in work comp benefits, and workers will be allowed to ask a judge for “prospective” retraining claims (benefitting a worker who does not have the financial ability to enroll in school unless the work comp carrier will be paying).

The Advisory Council bill maintains the stability of Wisconsin’s first-class worker’s compensation system.  Lone wolf legislation should be dismissed. We urge the Wisconsin legislature to whole-heartedly endorse the reasoned Advisory Council bill.

States with Opt-Out Workers’ Comp System are Strict on Injured Workers

Dallas attorney Bill Minick (Photo credit Dylan Hollingsworth for ProPublica)

Today’s post comes from guest author Hayes Jernigan, from The Jernigan Law Firm.

Texas and Oklahoma have both adopted an “opt-out” system for Workers’ Compensation. ProPublica along with NPR recently published an in-depth look at the results in these two states. Under this system, employers can opt-out of state mandated workers’ compensation insurance by creating their own policy for injured workers. These employer-written policies give employers 100% control over the terms, the benefits, and even settlements.

Specifically, ProPublica and NPR found that these employer-created policies generally have strict 24-hour reporting requirements or even require an injury to be reported by the end of a shift. This means, if an employee does not report their injury within their shift, or within 24 hours, they are prevented from bringing a claim at all. Period. End of discussion. Employers can also dictate how much benefits will be paid and some employers have capped death benefits for employees who are killed at work at $250,000. Whereas under the State Workers’ Compensation system, if a deceased worker leaves behind minor children, they will continue to receive benefits until they turn 18 (which could easily end up being well over $250,000 when you factor in lost wages until the worker would have been 65). This is potentially detrimental to a young widow or widower who is left with very young children.

This morning we tweeted a recent ABC news article that a worker was killed when he fell at a construction site in Charlotte. I’d hate to think that his or her family would be limited to recovering only $250,000 in the event the worker left behind dependent family members and young children. Money can’t begin to replace someone who is lost to us too early from an accident at work, but $250,000 would hardly cover a lifetime of income that the family will lose, especially if young children are left behind.

 

To read more on how the Opt-Out system is affecting injured workers in Texas and Oklahoma, go to: ProPublica: Inside Corporate America’s Campaign to Ditch Workers’ Comp.