|
|
|
|
|
|
Find Solutions & Strategies May 24, 2010 |
|
|
Drug Testing of Injured Worker |
Claimant avoids mandatory drug test by "good faith" effort |
|
| A Note From the Editor |  | | Dear WC Professionals:
I hope everyone has a fun and safe Memorial Day Weekend. The next eNewsletter will go out Tuesday, June 1.
Sincerely,
Robin E. Kobayashi, J.D.
LexisNexis Editorial & Content Development
|
| Videocast of the Week | | When it comes to the reporting requirements under the Medicare Secondary Payer law, who exactly is the responsible reporting entity?
Hear the answer from Sylvius von Saucken, Chief Compliance Officer with The Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. View it |
| Workers' Comp Profile |
 Ronald Balter is an associate with the firm of Caruso, Spillane, Leighton, Contrastano, Ulaner & Savino, P.C., where he represents injured workers. He is a founding member of the Injured Workers Bar Association. He served as chair of the State Bar's Tort, Insurance and Compensation Law Section's Workers' Compensation Division from 2004 until 2006. Mr. Balter has also served on the Board of Directors of the Society of New York Workers' Compensation Bar Association since 1988. In 2005 Mr. Balter was named the Workers' Compensation Attorney of the Year by the Institute for Jewish Humanities. He is also the co-author of New York Workers' Compensation Handbook (LexisNexis Matthew Bender). |
|
| featured article: drug testing | |
 Claimant Avoids Mandatory Drug Test by "Good Faith" Effort, by Martin Klug. A Missouri employer failed to prove claimant "refused" to take a mandatory urine drug test following an injury to his thumb, when claimant made a "good faith" attempt to urinate and claims he was just too dehydrated. Read more
|
 |
| Larson's spotlight: 5 recent cases you should know about | |
 Larson's Spotlight reports noteworthy workers' comp cases each week. This list was compiled by Thomas A. Robinson, a staff writer for Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, the nation's leading authority on workers' compensation law.
#1 RI: Broad Exclusivity Rules Mean Employee May Not Sue Employer in Tort In Spite of Settlement Agreement That Stipulated Slip & Fall Injury Had Not Occurred in Course of Employment
#2 CA: "Harmless" Ex Parte Communication Causes Disqualification of Medical Evaluator
#3 CT: Cancellation Notice Need Not Be Sent to Employer; Only Required Notice is to Commissioner
#4 FL: County Jail Nurses' Intentional Tort Action Against Employer Following Jail Break Fails
#5 MA: Conviction for Workers' Comp Fraud Affirmed Where "Injured" Worker Was Discovered Working at Bar |
|
| blog round up | |
 Workers' Comp Fraud Blotter - Recent Arrests, Charges, Convictions, Investigations 5/20/2010. Read it.
Connecticut Employee's Tort Case Against Corporate Officers/Shareholders for Parking Lot Injuries May Proceed, by Thomas A. Robinson. Read it.
 Taxis and Workers' Compensation, by WorkersCompensation.com. Read it.
 CMS' Memorandum Regarding Rated Age Attestation/Certification and Medications Prescribed for Off-Label Uses, by Ryan Roth, MedVal. Read it. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| what's new in larson's workers' compensation law | 
Lexis.com subscribers to Larson's Workers' Compensation Law can link to the chapter discussion below.
Find out more about how to become a Larson's online subscriber by contacting: Caroline.Conway@lexisnexis.com. Exclusiveness as to Persons Other Than the Employee. There are two general types of "exclusive liability" clauses-one narrow, one more broad. The narrow type, sometimes referred to as the "Rhode Island" type, says that the employee's rights under the workers' compensation act shall be "in lieu of all rights and remedies as to that injury now existing, either at common law or otherwise against an employer." The broader type, reflected in New York (and other states) carries things one step further by specifying that the excluded actions include those by "such employee, his personal representatives, husband, parents, dependents or next of kin, or anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages, at common law or otherwise on account of such injury or death." Chapter 101, which deals with exclusiveness as to persons other than the employee, is being revised and updated for the June 2010 release. The effect of such an exclusiveness rule can be particularly problematic for non-dependent relatives. For example, in Alonzi v. Northeast Generation Servs. Co., 156 N.H. 656, 940 A.2d 1153 (2008), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the death benefit provision of N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 281-A:26(IV) which, inter alia, provides only a limited remedy to the estates of dependent-less decedents who are killed at work, did not offend the equal protection guarantee of the New Hampshire Constitution since the statute served an important government interest and balanced the competing needs of employers and employees. Somewhat similarly, in Saab v. Massachusetts CVS Pharm., LLC, 452 Mass. 564, 896 N.E.2d 615 (2008), the court held that the parents of an employee who died in a work-related accident could not maintain a wrongful death action against the successor in interest to their son's employer in spite of the fact that since they were not dependent upon the son, they could not recover any death benefits under the Massachusetts Workers' Compensation Act [see Ch. 101, § 101.02[1] Digest, n6]. |
|
| save 50% now on larson's |
Larson's Workers' Compensation Law (12 vols.)
Regular Price: $3,981
Discount Price: $1,990.50
Larson's Workers' Compensation, Desk Edition (3 vols.)
Regular Price: $1,063
Discount Price: $531.50
Offer extended through June 2010 |
LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. Other products or services may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.
Privacy & Security Copyright © 2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
