Share

Workers' Compensation

Monday, May 18, 2015

How to Handle a Work-Related Injury That Was Caused By A Third Party

If My Work Related Injury Is Caused by a Third Party Do I Also Have a Personal Injury Claim?

People who suffer work related injuries that were caused, at least in part, by someone other than your employer may have a viable personal injury claim as well.

Some examples include:

• While driving a company owned vehicle in the course of your duties you were injured in an accident caused by the negligence of another driver.

• You slipped and hurt yourself when you stepped onto a slippery surface at a customer’s facility. 

• You were injured as you worked on the assembly line by a machine tool that was defectively designed or manufactured or defectively repaired by an outside contractor. 

If you exercise your right to file this lawsuit, your employer (or its insurer) has a right to collect a percentage (based on a formula) of what you collect from this third party in order to be paid back what it paid to you. This is known as subrogation.

Your employer or its insurance carrier cannot directly sue the third party to be reimbursed what it paid out, the injured worker needs to be part of the litigation, according to a state Supreme Court decision, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Domtar Paper Co.

In this case, George Lawrence worked for the trucking company Schneider National, Inc., at a facility leased by Domtar when he slipped and fell in the parking lot, injuring himself, resulting in a payment of $33,929.23 in workers' compensation benefits. Liberty Mutual sued Domtar and the owners of the facility claiming they were responsible for the injury. Lawrence never filed his own suit, assigned his legal rights to Liberty Mutual nor did he join their lawsuit.

The lower court ruled Liberty Mutual did not have a right to sue on its own a third party alleged to have caused the work related injury and dismissed the case. On appeal the Supreme Court disagreed with Liberty Mutual’s interpretation of state statute and prior court decisions and agreed with the trial court.

If you find yourself suffering from a work related injury caused by another party, the workers compensation and personal injury attorneys at Louis P. Lombardi II & Associates, P.C., can help you navigate through the complex legal system. The firm helps those in the Philadelphia area with offices in Philadelphia, Plymouth Meeting, Montgomery County and Chalfont, Bucks County. Call (610)239-7600 or (888)818-4343 today to schedule a consultation. 


Monday, May 11, 2015

Work-Related Traumatic Brain Injuries Could Create Lifelong Limitations

What are some of the side effects of work-related traumatic brain injuries? 

Each day, Americans sustain traumatic brain injuries in their homes, on the roads and in the workplace. These serious injuries result not only in physical disabilities, but cognitive loss and personality changes. While many tissues in the body can recover from injury, brain cells cannot. 

TBI is caused by a blow or jolt to the head, which may or may not cause an open wound to the skull, which disrupts normal brain functioning. Not all blows to the head result in a TBI. The harm from TBIs range from “mild” (a short change in consciousness) to “severe” (a long period of unconsciousness or lost memory).  Most TBIs are mild and normally called concussions.

TBI is a leading cause of death and disability, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It estimates that TBIs contribute to nearly a third of all injury deaths.  

TBI can result in impaired thinking, lost memory, limited movement, lost sensation (including vision and hearing) and emotional functioning (personality changes, anger and depression).  These effects not only impact workers but their families and communities as well.

CDC figures paint a sobering picture of the number and severity of TBIs across the country. In 2010:

• about 2.5 million emergency department visits, hospital admissions and deaths were connected to TBI, (either by themselves or in combination with other injuries);

• the deaths of more than 50,000 people were connected to TBI; and

• TBI was a diagnosis (by itself or with other conditions) in more than 280,000 hospitalizations and 2.2 million emergency department visits.  

The leading causes of TBI are: 

• Falls - 40.5%,

• Unknown/other - 19%,

• Traffic accidents - 14.3%

• Being struck by or against an object - 15.5% 

• Assaults - 10.7%.

Work-related TBIs can be caused by:
• slips and falls in areas that are uneven or slippery;

• accidents involving construction equipment, autos or trucks;

• being struck in the head by an object or piece of equipment being moved from one place to another; and

• being the victim of a crime at the workplace.

If you or a loved one in Montgomery or Bucks Counties has suffered a work-related TBI, the law firm of Louis P. Lombardi II & Associates can help you obtain the medical treatment and compensation you deserve. Call (888) 818-4343 or (610) 239-7600 to schedule your free consultation. 

 


Friday, May 1, 2015

Nurse Receives Workers' Compensation Benefits for Occupational Asthma

Can one continue to receive workers' compensation benefits even after recovering from an occupational injury and going back to work elsewhere?

Nancy Little worked as a full-time registered nurse at a Pennsylvania hospital until the floor wax they used caused such severe asthma that she was unable to perform her duties. Although she recovered and was able to return to work elsewhere part-time, an appellate court ruled that she is entitled to workers' compensation benefits for her occupational asthma.

As a full-time nurse at Select Specialty Hospital, Little experienced frequent breathing difficulties that forced her to leave work. Emergency room treatment helped temporarily, but each time she returned to her job, her breathing problems resumed. She ultimately gave up working at the hospital and sought total disability worker's compensation benefits, which her employer denied.

Little later accepted a part-time nursing job at Altoona Hospital, explaining to them that she had been allergic to the floor wax used by her previous employer. Altoona Hospital switched to a different floor wax, and Little no longer experienced breathing problems.

Relying on testimony from Little and a toxicologist, a Pennsylvania workers' compensation judge ruled that Little's disability had been due to exposure to a chemical in the floor wax used at Select Specialty Hospital and granted Little's request for benefits.

Little appealed the judge's award of partial disability benefits, arguing that she should continue to receive benefits from Select Specialty Hospital because she was unable to return to work full time after leaving there and experienced a loss in wages. The Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Appeal Board rejected her argument, finding that Little had recovered and failed to prove residual impairment.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court unanimously reversed the decision stating that Little's inability to return to the hospital entitled her to additional workers' compensation benefits. According to the court, all she needed to prove was that her health problem arose in the course of employment, that it was related to her employment and that she could not return to her former workplace because the problem would recur. Those conditions were met.

The attorneys at Louis P. Lombardi II & Associates, P.C., have the experience and knowledge to successfully guide your workers' compensation claim. We serve the Philadelphia metropolitan area with convenient locations in the city of Philadelphia, Plymouth Meeting, Montgomery County and Chalfont, Bucks County. Contact us today at (610)239-7600 or (888)818-4343 to arrange a consultation.


Thursday, April 23, 2015

Former Pittsburgh Steeler Wins Workers’ Compensation Claim

Can I appeal the denial of my workers' compensation claim? 

If a worker is injured on the job, he or she is usually eligible for partial or full disability payments – depending upon the nature and extent of the injury. For former Pittsburgh Steelers center Chukky Okobi, his six years with the team caused so much damage to his back and neck that he has been unable to continue his career and will need lifelong medical interventions to withstand the pain of the damage. Okobi successfully pursued workers’ compensation benefits from the Pittsburgh Steelers Sports Inc. A Commonwealth Court judge upheld the Workers’ Compensation Board holding in favor of Okobi.

In 2009, Okobi filed his original claim for workers’ compensation from the team and was immediately met with resistance. After a denial of his first claim for benefits, Okobi appealed to the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Board and was victorious. During that stage of the process, the Steelers missed several filing deadlines and failed to properly advance their arguments against Okobi in the administrative hearing. 

Nonetheless, the Steelers appealed the Board’s decision, citing it did not have an adequate opportunity to participate in the litigation. Again holding for Okobi, the court pointed out the team’s penchant for blowing its deadlines. The judge awarded almost $18,000 in attorneys’ fees to Mr. Okobi as well as costs in the amount of $5,516 and unspecified medical damages. From now on, Mr. Okobi will receive $779 per week from the Steelers to compensate him for his workplace injuries.

The Steelers can appeal the Commonwealth Court decision to Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The attorneys at Louis P. Lombardi II & Associates, P.C., have the experience and knowledge to successfully guide your workers' compensation claim. We serve the Philadelphia metropolitan area with convenient locations in the city of Philadelphia, Plymouth Meeting, Montgomery County and Chalfont, Bucks County. Contact us today at (610)239-7600 or (888)818-4343 to arrange a consultation.


Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Employee Robbed at Work Granted Reconsideration of Workers’ Compensation Claim

What constitutes an "abnormal work condition" entitling an injured employee to workers' compensation?

An employee who was brutally attacked on the job but denied workers' compensation will get another chance to have her claim considered by the Worker's Compensation Appeal board, thanks to a ruling by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Pamela Murphy was employed at a check cashing business in Levittown, Pennsylvania when the incident occurred. Upon parking her car, she was held at gunpoint by an assailant who forced her to give him the office's alarm access codes. Her husband, who had driven with her to her office, was handcuffed, tied up and forced into the car's back seat.

Holding a gun at her back, the assailant forced Murphy to unlock the company's safe and left her hogtied. When the police arrived, she had chest pain, was unable to speak or breathe and had to be taken by ambulance to a hospital.
She received treatment for injuries to her back and shoulder and psychiatric treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Her claim stated that she continued to have nightmares and panic attacks, could not concentrate, was afraid to return to the office and feared the gunman might find her. Adding to her anxiety, her son-in-law had been killed while working as a courier for the same employer six years before.

In denying her claim, The Workers’ Compensation judge and the Appeal Board both concluded that her physical injuries were not serious enough and that the incident was not an "abnormal work condition" entitling her to compensation. Robberies are not uncommon in the check cashing industry. Her employer testified that employees receive security training and personal panic codes and are told to use a dummy safe if robbed.

The Commonwealth Court agreed with the Appeal Board about the severity of the physical injuries but asked the Appeal Board to reconsider whether the robbery was an abnormal working condition. They pointed to the case of a State Trooper who ran over a pedestrian who jumped in front of his patrol car. While accidents are common in law enforcement, the Workers’ Compensation judge found it is unusual for a mentally ill person to run in front of a patrol car for no reason. The unique facts of the case enabled the trooper's claim to be upheld in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The law firm of Louis P. Lombardi II & Associates, P.C., serves the injured in Montgomery County, Bucks County and throughout the Philadelphia area. Our attorneys have extensive experience with workers' compensation claims and other matters. Contact us today at (610)239-7600 or (888)818-4343 for a free consultation.


Monday, February 16, 2015

Maximum Medical Improvement and Your Rights

How Are Injury Levels and Benefit Amounts Determined Following Workplace Injury, Treatment and Recovery?

Workers’ compensation claims may seem simple at first glance. A worker is injured at work, he or she cannot work for a while and compensation is received until a return to work is possible. Simple, right?

Actually, workers’ compensation claims are often highly complex and may revolve around difficult questions such as:
• How is the accuracy and validity of Impairment Rating Evaluations (IREs) determined?
• What percentage of full-body impairment did the worker experience?
• Once time has passed, healing has occurred and treatment has been administered, when is Maximum Medical Improvement(MMI) reached?

And, perhaps most importantly, “Who answers these questions and subsequently determines the amount and duration of financial compensation?” 

A recent Pennsylvania case shed light on how the accuracy and validity of IREs may be weighed in some disputes. IREs are crucial to workers’ compensation claims, because they are used by judges to measure the extent and effect of injuries and, subsequently, the level of ongoing benefits. 

In 2004, Nicole Neff was injured at work and claimed serious and long-term impairment. Yet her IRE showed that, despite the fact that future surgery may improve her recovery, she had already achieved Maximum Medical Improvement. The IRE also showed that she had a full-body impairment of just one percent. The Workers’ Compensation judge accepted the IRE findings, and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board affirmed the decision. Neff responded by filing suit in civil court. 

In Neff’s 2014 case, Neff v. WCAB, she and her attorneys claimed that she could not have achieved Maximum Medical Improvement since the IRE showed that future surgery could improve her condition. This claim seems logical and valid. Yet the court upheld the previous rulings, basing its decision on the fact that relevant guidelines instruct that an individual is at Maximum Medical Improvement when the condition is “static or stable” and when “one would not expect a change in condition at any time in the immediate future" and the clarity and credibility of the IRE doctor.

If you were injured at work, do not navigate the complexities of IREs and Maximum Medical Improvement without the help of an experienced workers’ compensation attorney. If you live in Montgomery or Bucks County, Pennsylvania, contact Louis P. Lombardi II & Associates, PC at (610)239-7600.


Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Bankruptcy Judge Shielded Workers Compensation Settlement

Can workers compensation settlement and Medicare set-aside account funds be used for expenses other than medical treatment?

A worker broke his hip and settled the workers compensation claim related to the injury for $225,000 in workers compensation benefits and $72,742 placed into a Medicare set-aside account for future medical treatment. The worker used those funds to purchase real estate in York, Pennsylvania, and a new truck

About two years after the purchases, when filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilkes-Barre, the worker asked for the properties, truck and remaining funds from the workers compensation settlement to be exempted from the proceedings. Despite objections by the trustee in the bankruptcy case, the judge exempted everything as requested by the worker.

The judge found that the settlement funds were reasonably necessary to support the worker’s family. The worker was unemployed, his wife had a low-earning job, and two of their three children were under 18. While the worker was receiving some income from his brother, the judge found it to be modest.

One of the worker’s real estate purchases was a parcel of property that the worker sold to his brother under an installment payment agreement. The worker did not disclose that agreement to the bankruptcy court. Still, the judge determined that the income had only a negligible impact on the worker’s bankruptcy case and did not have to be included as an asset.

The Medicare set-aside fund was not included in the bankruptcy proceedings because it was intended for medical expenses, although the worker did not use it for that purpose.

The attorneys at Louis P. Lombardi II & Associates are experienced in handling all types of workers’ compensation claims. We service the areas of Philadelphia and Montgomery and Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Contact us at (610)239-7600 for a consultation today.


Monday, January 12, 2015

Pennsylvania State Liquor Store Manager Awarded Workers Compensation Benefits the Second Time Around

What can you do if your workers’ compensation claim is denied?

Many Americans are injured on the job everyday.  That is why most employers are required to carry some form of workers’ compensation insurance.  Sometimes, a worker is injured in an unusual way and when he or she makes a claim for benefits it may be denied due to the uncommon circumstance.  When this happens, the worker often has the right to appeal.  This is exactly the situation in a recent Pennsylvania workers’ compensation case. 

In 2008, Gregory Kochanowicz was working as a manager at a Pennsylvania state liquor store in Morrisville.  During his shift, a robber entered the store wielding a gun and demanded that Kochanowicz hand over the money in the store safe.  The robber held a gun to Kochanowicz’s head throughout most of the ordeal and also duct taped him and a co-worker to chairs.

While, Kochanowicz remained physically unharmed, he claims to have been seriously disturbed by the incident. Kochanowicz claims that he was unable to go back to work after the ordeal and to have suffered severe emotional distress.  As such, Kochanowicz filed a workers compensation claim with his employer the Pennsylvania Liquor Control.  The agency disputed the claim and the Commonwealth Court denied Kochanowicz’s plea for benefits. Kochanowicz appealed the denial to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and this court sent the case back down to the Commonwealth Court for further review.  At this point, the Commonwealth Court decided that benefits were warranted and found in favor of Kochanowicz.  The court noted in its opinion that because the circumstances leading to Kochanowicz’s injuries were not considered normal working conditions that he should be entitled to benefits.  

If you were injured at work, even in an unusual way, do not be discouraged from pursuing a workers’ compensation claim.  The attorneys at Louis P. Lombardi II & Associates are experienced in representing clients in a variety of circumstances and may be able to help you.  The firm represents clients in and around the areas of Montgomery and Bucks County, Pennsylvania and can be reached at (610)239-7600 or (888)818-4343.  Contact us for a consultation today.


Monday, December 29, 2014

Dog Bite on Break Leads to Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Can you receive workers’ compensation benefits if you were injured while on a break?

In Pennsylvania, an employee may be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits if he or she was injured during the course and scope of his or her employment.  While during the course and scope of employment is a phrase that implies that the person must be injured while working, this is not the case.  This phrase has come to encompass a variety of situations as evidenced by a recent Pennsylvania case.

Sean Sovens worked full time for a manufacturing company and part time as a cook at the 1912 Hoover House Restaurant.  In the spring of 2010, while working his one night a week at the restaurant, he went out for a smoke break.  At the same time, his co-worker’s father stopped by, bringing with him the co-worker’s dog.  Sovens pet the dog and the dog attacked him, biting him on the face and causing lacerations.  This incident resulted in Sovens missing 6 days of work.  

Sovens filed a workers’ compensation claim in April of the same year and the restaurant argued that he should be denied benefits because the dog bite did not occur within the course and scope of his employment.  The judge did not agree with the restaurant and instead awarded Sovens’ benefits, assessing his salary to be over $900 a week, which included the wages from his full time job.  

The restaurant appealed the award of benefits and the salary assessment.  While the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that the salary was calculated incorrectly, they also found that Sovens was entitled to benefits nonetheless.  The decision was appealed further and subsequently upheld by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. This high court found that breaks for leisure that do not interfere with work are considered to be within the course and scope of employment.  They also found that the petting of the dog in Sovens case did not cause him to fall outside of the course or scope.  In addition, the court held that the fact that he was injured while smoking in an area provided by the restaurant was further evidence that the incident occurred while he was on the job.

The attorneys at Louis P. Lombardi II & Associates are experienced in handling all types of workers’ compensation claims.  We service the areas of Philadelphia, Montgomery and Bucks County, Pennsylvania and can be reached at (610)239-7600. Contact us for a consultation today.


Friday, June 27, 2014

Worker misclassification results in denial of benefits

Workplace injuries can often be prevented, but sometimes injuries occur because of the carelessness of a fellow employee. An example of this type of accident is a permanent hand injury suffered by a Pennsylvania truck driver when employees of other companies failed to properly cap his pressurized tank and later failed to safely correct the problem. As a result of these mistakes, the trucker suffered an injury for which he is seeking over $75,000 of damages.

Sources did not mention whether the trucker received workers' compensation benefits for his injuries. Truckers who are classified as employees, of course, have the ability to seek workers' compensation as a matter of course. There are situations, though, where truckers may not have this compensation available. This can happen when a worker is classified as an independent contractors when he is actually an employee.


Read more . . .


Friday, June 6, 2014

PA court rules in favor of deceased worker's claim

Employers are not always cooperative with workers' compensation claims and sometimes try to create barriers for an injured employee seeking recovery. One way of doing this is to claim that the employee's injury is not work-related. In cases where the injury clearly took place while the employee was on the job, the argument may be that the employee was not technically acting as an employee at the time of the injury.

This was the argument made by a Pittsburgh gas station when a workers' compensation claim was filed on behalf of a manager who was injured back in 2009 by a robber. According to sources, the manager tried to stop a robber who attempted to steal money from the cash register. In the process of doing so, he ended up with a traumatic brain injury which left him in a coma for a number of months before he died in April of 2010.


Read more . . .


Archived Posts

2017
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2016
2015
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2014



Workers Compensation Law News



© 2020 Louis P. Lombardi II & Associates | Disclaimer
1000 Germantown Pike, Suite J6 , Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
| Phone: 610-239-7600

Workers' Compensation | Personal Injury | About

Law Firm Website Design by
Zola Creative