ADA and Return-to-Work: Avoiding Litigation, by Maureen Kohl Bennington. Employers need to accommodate employees in order to protect themselves from violating ADA legislation. The interpretation of what constitutes a "qualified individual with disabilities", a reasonable accommodation, or an undue hardship to the employer to provide those accommodations has been repeatedly challenged in the court system. Professionals managing workers' compensation claims must recognize the increased potential for ADA claims filed in conjunction with a workers' compensation claim. Understanding employer obligations relative to return-to-work under workers' compensation and fulfilling the obligations of the ADA are mandatory if employers are to protect themselves from costly litigation. > Read more

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. 

Workers' Comp Fraud Blotter - Recent Arrests, Charges, Convictions, Investigations 7/15/2010. Read it.

Workers' Comp 20/20: Tethered by Wireless - The Future Office Without Walls, by Workers Compensation.com. Read it.

 

 Texas: SORM v. Ramirez - Unreliable Medical Report, by Stuart Colburn, Downs Stanford. Read it.

Appeal of Defense Base Act Claims to the Courts: The Disagreement Over Forum Continues, by Monica Markovich, Brown Sims, P.C.  Read it.

The Emperor's New Clothes: Delaware IAB Decision Strips Doctor Naked, by Cassandra Roberts. Read it.

 

Rubbed the Wrong Way? DE IAB rules massage therapists cannot piggyback on chiropractor's provider certification under Section 2322D, by Cassandra Roberts. Read it.

Chapter 7 has been revised, bringing up to date this discussion. For example, in Chappell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2009 Ohio 542, where a cashier felt ill, decided to go to the restroom, and passed out and fell to the floor before she reached the rest area, an Ohio court agreed that there was no employment-related explanation to explain the fall. Proximity to the job was insufficient. See Ch. 7, § 7.04[1][b] n.33.2. Representative of other cases where courts have refused to follow the positional risk rule, but have nevertheless found an increased risk of injury is the case of Restaurant Dev. Group v. Oh, 2009 Ill. App. LEXIS 407 (June 16, 2009), in which a bartender working near the front of a restaurant's large glass window sustained gunshot wounds during a gang shootout. Evidence that the restaurant was located in a high crime area, that the bartender worked late at night, and that there had been a history of gunfire in the neighborhood was sufficient to establish that the bartender faced an increased risk of injury. See Ch. 7, § 7.01[3] n.38.2.

Unexplained deaths can be particularly problematic for the courts. Many states imploy some sort of presumption, that unwitnessed deaths (or injuries) are presumed to have arisen from the employment. That presumption can be rebutted, however, as was the case in a recent New York decision, Matter of Ruper v. Transportation Sys. of W. N.Y., 58 A.D.3d 930, 870 N.Y.S.2d 623 (2009). Claimant's husband, a tractor-trailer driver, had arrived for work at approximately 11:30 A.M. and was assigned to drive an empty trailer to West Virginia. Hours passed and no one heard from him. A search ensued and decedent's body was found slumped against a flatbed trailer in the employer's parking lot at approximately 4:45 P.M. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits, finding that the death was unwitnessed and the employer did not sufficiently rebut the presumption contained in N.Y. Workers' Comp. Law § 21. On review, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, based on its determination that the employer had rebutted the presumption. Claimant appealed. The appellate court noted that the employer presented decedent's death certificate and the results of an autopsy, both of which attributed his death solely to arteriosclerotic coronary artery disease. The employer also submitted the report and testimony of a cardiologist who concluded that decedent's death was not work related but due to a preexisting heart condition. Inasmuch as the record evidence supported the Board's determination that decedent's death was not work related, the appellate court could not disturb it. See Ch. 7, § 7.04[2] (Digest) n.38.

 

Larson's Workers' Compensation Law  (12 vols.)

> order here

Regular Price: $3,981

Discount Price: $1,990.50

 

Larson's Workers' Compensation, Desk Edition (3 vols.) 

> order here

Regular Price: $1,063

Discount Price: $531.50