Monthly Archives: August 2013

Your Social Security Benefits After The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) Decision

Nearly two months after the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Social Security Administration has announced that it will start to pay benefits to some individuals in same-sex marriages. In order to be eligible for benefits, these individuals must meet the same criteria as individuals in opposite-sex marriages, in addition to several other requirements.

Only applications for spousal benefits are being approved right now. Spousal benefits are payable to a spouse who either 1) did not work enough to be entitled to Social Security benefits or 2) worked enough to be entitled to Social Security benefits but would be entitled to a larger benefit on their spouse’s earnings record.  This is generally the case when one spouse earned significantly more than the other spouse over the course of their working lives. The individual on whose earnings record the claim is made (the number holder, in SSA’s terms) must also be entitled to old-age or disability benefits from Social Security. In order to receive spousal benefits, you must be at least age 62 and have been married to the number holder for at least one year.

The individual applying for benefits (the claimant, in SSA’s terms) must show that he or she was married to the number holder in a state that permits same-sex marriage and that the number holder is living in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage either 1) when the application for benefits is filed or 2) while the application is pending a final determination. It does not matter what state the claimant lives in. What matters for SSA’s purposes is the state the number holder lives in. This only matters when spouses live in different states.

Below is a chart from SSA that shows which states recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, and when those states permitted same-sex marriages.  If a state is not listed, it does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or permit same-sex marriages to be performed.

Before filing a claim for benefits or moving to a different state, you should consult with an experienced attorney or with the Social Security Administration to determine your eligibility for benefits.  As SSA continues to pay benefits to more individuals in connection with the Supreme Court’s decision, we will provide updated information regarding who may be eligible for these benefits.

State

Date Same-Sex Marriages from Any Other State Was Recognized

Date Same-Sex Marriages Were Permitted in the State

California

June 17, 2008 – November 4, 2008

June 26, 2013 – present

June 17, 2008 – November 4, 2008

June 26, 2013 – present

Connecticut

November 12, 2008

November 12, 2008

Delaware

July 1, 2013

July 1, 2013

Iowa

April 30, 2009

April 20, 2009

Maine

December 29, 2012

December 29, 2012

Maryland

February 23, 2010

January 1, 2013

Massachusetts

May 17, 2004

May 17, 2004

Minnesota

August 1, 2013

August 1, 2013

New Hampshire

January 1, 2010

January 1, 2010

New York

February 1, 2008

July 24, 2011

Rhode Island

May 14, 2012

August 1, 2013

Vermont

September 1, 2009

September 1, 2009

Washington

December 6, 2012

December 6, 2012

Washington, DC

July 7, 2009

March 9, 2010

 

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Don’t Miss This Important Deadline For The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund

The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (the Fund) is approaching an important deadline. Anyone who knew or had reason to know of physical harm or illness resulting from the 9/11 attacks before October 3, 2011 is required to register by October 3, 2013.

Registration preserves your right to file a claim in the future (before the Fund ends on October 3, 2016). Registration is not the same as filing a claim and does not commit you to file a claim even if you have registered. If you are uncertain about when your illness began, register by the October 3, 2013 deadline to preserve your right to file a claim.

Please contact us if you have any questions about the Fund or how to file your claim.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

The Toxic Cloud Over the US EPA

Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Gelman, from Jon Gelman, LLC – Attorney at Law.

Chromium IV is a deadly cancer causing substance. In September 2010 the scientists came to the conclusion that even a small amount of the chemical compound found in drinking water could be fatal if consumed. Today the PBS NEWSHOUR airs a documentary, EPA Contaminated by Conflict of Interest,  on how the chemical Industry is quietly delaying implementation of regulation of Chromium IV.

The compound, hexavalent chromium, gained infamy in the Oscar-winning film Erin Brockovich, based on the David-vs.-Goliath legal duel between desert dwellers in Hinkley, Calif., and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. The film ends in Hollywood fashion, with the corporate polluter paying $333 million to people suffering from illnesses.

Companies with a stake in chromium have borrowed from the Big Tobacco playbook, 
using science to create doubt.

But in real life, the drama continues. More than 70 million Americans drink traces of chromium every day, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research organization.

 

TOXIC INFLUENCE is an ongoing series of reports exploring the nexus between industry, science and policy. This story is being produced in partnership with the Center for Public Integrity.

 ….
Jon L.Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
 
Read more about Chromium IV and Workers’ Compensation
Oct 25, 2012
Areas underneath the building, located at 125 Clark Street, are contaminated with hexavalent chromium that is reaching the basements of some area residences and businesses through the ground water. The EPA continues …
Oct 03, 2009
The US Department of Defense has announced that it will investigate emerging environmental and health risks arising from chemical exposures. One of the particular areas of concern is the exposure to hexavalent chromium …
Jun 09, 2009
Soldiers who have been exposed to hexavalent chromium, a carcinogen, have filed suit against a government contractor. The present and former soldiers have brought a claims against KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root), …
Jul 10, 2009
Hexavalent chromium [Chromium (VI) [hexavalent chromium or Cr(VI)]”means chromium with a valence of positive six, inany form and in any compound.] has been added to the list of air contaminants whose concentrations …
 
Related articles

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Overpayment Of Unemployment Due To Payment of Workers’ Compensation Benefits – NOW WHAT?!?

Today’s post comes from guest author Kit Case, from Causey Law Firm.

Injured workers transition from time loss compensation under their workers’ compensation claim to unemployment compensation when they are released to return to work but do not have a job available to them. In many cases, disputes arise as to whether the release to work and termination of workers’ compensation payments is appropriate. Often, the worker tries to find physically-appropriate work while collecting unemployment compensation during the dispute process but, once their attorney secures payment of back benefits under the workers’ compensation claim, an overpayment of unemployment benefits has occurred due to the overlap between the two systems. When this happens, workers should:

  1. Notify the unemployment insurance system that they are continuing to seek payment from the workers’ compensation system, but that they are involved in an appropriate job search during the dispute process.
  2. Immediately share with the workers’ compensation attorney any notices or orders received from the unemployment insurance system. These are usually NOT mailed to the attorney of record in a workers’ compensation claim and the notices often have limited time periods within to file a protest or request for reconsideration of the determination.
  3. Hold in savings from the workers’ compensation payment the claimed unemployment overpayment amount during the dispute process until a final overpayment notice has been issued, or have the workers’ compensation attorney hold this amount in their trust account. If this is not possible, be prepared to enter into a repayment agreement with the unemployment insurance system once a final overpayment figure has been determined.
  4. Seek assistance from the workers’ compensation attorney to document all attorney fees and costs paid as part of the effort to obtain back benefits under the workers’ compensation claim. Submit this documentation to the unemployment insurance system and request a reduction in the claimed overpayment to take these attorney fees and costs into account.
  5. Continue to send any notices or orders to the workers’ compensation attorney.
  6. Once the overpayment has been repaid, check to see if the receipt of workers’ compensation back benefits changes your tax obligations. In many states, workers’ compensation payments are not taxable income, but unemployment benefits are taxable. If there is a significant payment of back benefits under the workers’ compensation claim, it may be worthwhile to file an amended tax return with the IRS to document the lower taxable income figure.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

How Workers’ Compensation Settlements Affect Social Security Benefits

Today’s post comes from guest author Todd Bennett, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

It is fairly common for an injured worker to receive Social Security disability benefits and also receive a settlement for workers’ compensation. According to Social Security, “If you receive workers’ compensation or other public disability benefits and Social Security disability benefits, the total amount of these benefits cannot exceed 80 percent of your average current earnings before you became disabled.” Here’s how I handle this situation: in any settlement where an injured worker is receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, an attorney representing that person and/or the injured worker must think about how a lump-sum settlement affects the SSDI benefits for the person. There will probably be a decrease in benefits because “workers’ compensation and other public disability benefits may reduce your Social Security benefits,” according to the Social Security Administration. Some items can be kept out of the workers’ compensation settlement total for Social Security benefits purposes. This list includes, but is not limited to, such things as: attorney fees; litigation expenses; past medical bills that need to be paid; future medications expenses; future medical care expenses; and vocational services expenses. Taking away these parts of the settlement can and should increase the value of the net settlement to the injured worker. The remaining net settlement should then be distributed proportionally over the injured worker’s life expectancy. The overall result of your attorney preparing for your settlement by making these calculations means that a workers’ compensation settlement will decrease your Social Security disability benefits less.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Employee Rights Hurt by Supreme Court Decisions

United States Supreme Court

Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

Employee rights in the workplace took a step backward with the Vance and Nassar decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court. So what does this mean in concrete terms for employees?

Vance: The main takeaway from Vance is that employees must tell upper management and human resources about workplace harassment. This has been federal law in the Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island) and the 8th Circuit (Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Missouri and Arkansas). In order to sustain a workplace harassment claim under federal law, employees must now be able to show that management knew about harassment and that management failed to take effective action against the harassment.

Nassar: Nassar made it more difficult to prove retaliation under federal law. In the 5-4 majority decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court wrote that it was concerned about the increase in retaliation claims filed in the EEOC and the potential for “frivolous litigation.” The effect of this case is that even more retaliation cases will be decided by judges under summary judgment instead of being decided by juries.

However, just because it is harder to bring a discrimination or retaliation case under federal law doesn’t mean that an employee can’t bring a case under state law that could be more favorable to the employee. But employees pursuing wrongful termination cases in state court should be aware that state court judges oftentimes follow federal court judges in interpreting state fair-employment laws.  State court judges might find the Supreme Court’s concerns about “frivolous” retaliation suits to be well founded. 

I think Justice Alito was off base in his concerns about “frivolous” retaliation where employees who are about to get fired file complaints in order to preserve their job or set themselves up for a wrongful termination lawsuit. Any competent employee-rights attorney knows that retaliation suits are difficult to win. I turn down about 9 out of 10 people who call my office who claim they were wrongfully terminated. Wrongful termination suits are costly and time consuming. I am not going to invest time and money in a suit where I will likely get dismissed and possibly face financial sanctions under court rules and also possibly be opened up to paying costs to the prevailing employer under federal fair-employment law. I am doubly suspicious of employees who are fired shortly after they file discrimination or other claims. Employers know that if they fire someone after filing some sort of complaint that it appears to look bad. But courts will uphold that reason if they had a legitimate reason to fire the employee. In other words, the employee who knows they are skating on thin ice and then files a complaint is going to lose a wrongful termination case. The decision in Nassar won’t stop disgruntled employees from filing claims with fair-employment agencies, it will just make it more difficult for employees with legitimate wrongful termination claims to obtain justice.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Bangladesh Building Collapse Highlights Need for Safety Inspections

Bangladeshi Workers Protest Deaths

Today’s post comes from guest author Kit Case from The Causey Law Firm.

    The total number of workers killed or injured in the collapse of a building in Savar, Bangladesh on April 24, 2013 is not yet known, as rescuers continue to search for survivors.  As of Sunday, April 28th, the count was at least 377 dead.  Many of those killed were workers at clothing factories housed in the building, known as Rana Plaza, where fire broke out in the wreckage of the building, temporarily suspending rescue efforts as of April 24.  Efforts will restart with the aide of heavy equipment, which had previously been avoided in an effort to not injure those still buried in the rubble.  There no longer are assumed to be any victims remaining alive, although hundreds remain unaccounted for. The death toll surpassed a fire five months ago that killed 112 people and brought widespread pledges to improve worker-safety standards. But since then, very little has changed in Bangladesh.

Human Rights Watch reported on the building collapse, noting that it knows of no cases in which the Bangladeshi government has ever prosecuted a factory owner over the deaths of workers.

    USA Today reported on the tragedy with the news that Mohammed Sohel Rana, the fugitive owner of the illegally-constructed building, was apprehended by a commando force while trying to flee to India.  Rana was returned to Dhaka to face charges of negligence. Rana had been on the run since the building collapsed Wednesday. He last appeared in public Tuesday in front of the Rana Plaza after huge cracks appeared in the building. Witnesses said he assured tenants, including five garment factories, that the building was safe. Hours later, the Rana Plaza was reduced to rubble, crushing most victims under massive blocks of concrete.

    Human Rights Watch reported on the building collapse, noting that it knows of no cases in which the Bangladeshi government has ever prosecuted a factory owner over the deaths of workers. Many factory owners in Bangladesh are parliamentarians or members of the main political parties. In an interview with a government minister in 2011, the minister told Human Rights Watch that it would be “impossible” to improve workers rights so long as factory owners were senior members of political parties. 

    According to the Human Rights Watch report, Bangladesh has notoriously poor workplace safety inspection mechanisms. The Ministry of Labour’s Inspection Department, responsible for monitoring employers’ adherence to Bangladesh’s Labour Act, is chronically under-resourced. In June 2012, the Inspection Department had just 18 inspectors and assistant inspectors to monitor an estimated 100,000 factories in Dhaka district, where the Rana building is located. The garment sector alone employs an estimated 3 million workers. 

    According to the US Department of Labor Bureau of International Labor Affairs, workers in the Bangladeshi garment factories are primarily women – 75 to 90 percent – and children ranging in age from eight to fourteen years.  Most of the children are girls with an average age of just over 13 years.  Working conditions are described in the USDOLreport as follows:

        Garment factories are located in multi-storied buildings throughout Dhaka including Mirpur, Malibagh and Rampura districts (allegedly one of the worst areas), and the Free School District area. Working conditions in general in Bangladesh are far below western standards. On a par with other factory settings, garment factories are often dimly lit, with poor ventilation, and open for very long hours. However, some factories operate with good lighting and are not overly hot or crowded. The workers, mostly female, work without a break during their shift. Too often the factory doors are locked. Sometimes guards with keys stand by the locked gate; other times no one able to unlock the iron grating is near. Many times the locked gate is the only entrance or exit to a factory. The workers, including children, are frequently locked into their work place at the beginning of the morning shift and not let out until the end of the workday, and in some cases not until the next day. Overtime hours occur during peak periods in the production cycle when manufacturers are rushing to fulfill their export quotas. AAFLI’s 1994 survey of garment factories found that, like adult workers, children typically work 10 to 14 hours a day, with a half-day off on Friday.

    The similarities  are chilling to the working conditions of American garment workers at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory prior to the tragic fire on March 26, 1911 that forever bears the same name. The horrific deaths from the Triangle fire, witnessed through photographs printed in the news media around the world, spurred a swift and aggressive response by workers and labor activists. Their response led to the establishment of many of the protective organizations American workers now rely on, including the workers’ compensation system, the American Society of Safety Engineers, and the U.S. Department of Labor.

    As with the Triangle fire, this should be a call to action as well as a time for reflection.  We, as consumers, are tied to the businesses in Bangladesh that supply garments to American companies.  That connection gives us the power to effect change in the working conditions of the Bangladeshi factories by insisting that American corporations purchase garments for sale in the US from safety-inspected factories that meet minimal international standards for basic worker protection.

 

 

 

Photo credit: dblackadder / Foter.com / CC BY-SA 

 

 

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Official Disabilities Guidelines Now Covers Diabetes

Today’s post comes from guest author Paul J. McAndrew, Jr. from Paul McAndrew Law Firm.

While diabetes is not a work injury or illness, it can have a serious impact on the rate at which an injured worker recovers. For instance, people with diabetes may have a much harder time healing from a foot or leg injury. The latest edition of the annual Official Disabilities Guidelines (ODG) has been released, including the latest ODG volume on treating patients. ODG Treatment is the nationally recognized standard for medicine in determining the scope and duration of medical treatment in workers’ compensation.

For the first time this year, ODG Treatment includes a chapter on diabetes. According to the American Diabetes Association, there are nearly 26 million people in the United States who have been diagnosed with diabetes, and an estimated 7 million more people suffering who have not yet been diagnosed. Clearly, the implications of diabetes on workers’ compensation are significant.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.