Tag Archives: lobbying

Lobby Albany For Fair Treatment Of Injured Workers And Their Families

Last week I went to Albany to participate in Lobby Day on behalf of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association (NYSTLA). Our organization went to the capital to meet with members of the State Assembly and Senate to discuss a number of bills, outlining our support or opposition to proposed changes in various laws. 

There are two bills in particular that were borne out of heartbreak and therefore, impossible to understand why they have not been enacted into law. The first is the bill on Date of Discovery — commonly referred to as Lavern’s Law. You may be familiar with the background behind Lavern’s law as the Daily News published an article in 2015 about Lavern. She was a single mother who had visited a City hospital after feeling ill. The hospital sent her home even after an x-ray showed a suspicious mass in her lung. If she had been advised by the doctor about this, she would probably still be alive as the mass was a curable form of lung cancer. Tragically, she was not told about the results until it was too late and her condition was terminal. Lavern died in 2013, leaving behind a developmentally disabled daughter who was barred from bringing a lawsuit against the hospital and doctor because the time to bring a lawsuit had passed. The statute of limitations begins to run at the time of the malpractice, not when the malpractice was discovered. 

Sadly, this travesty has affected others who were never advised that their test results were abnormal.   We assume that once we have tests performed, doctors would notify us in a timely manner of any problems. But what if they don’t? There are a number of cases where CT scan results, mammograms, x-rays, and Pap smears all were misread or never reviewed, resulting in life-threatening consequences or death. For Lavern and others, this lifesaving information was never provided – and that failure proved fatal.  New York’s statute of limitations on malpractice is old and antiquated and needs to be updated.  We are one of only six states with a time limit that starts once an injury is caused and not when it is discovered. Lavern’s Law would provide a 2½-year statute of limitations from the time the person knew or should have known that a negligent act caused an injury. Governor Andrew Cuomo, understanding the impact, agreed to sign the bill into law if it passed the Senate and Assembly. 

The second bill proposed is known as the Grieving Families Law and would change the current New York Law on Wrongful Death, which only allows families to recover the lost income from a family member who died.  Many of my colleagues told stories of having to advise a grief-stricken family that their homemaker spouse, or child, or elderly parent’s life was worthless under the law, as the law only values the lives of high wage earners. This archaic law was enacted in 1847, and has never been amended.  While many other states have acknowledged that the loss of a loved one is monumental, and that the wrongdoers should be held accountable, New York is not one of them. This proposed law would allow families to be compensated for the profound emotional loss and grief caused by a wrongdoer. 

What these laws also will accomplish is to promote a safer society by holding wrongdoers accountable for their actions. It may be too late for Lavern and others in her situation, but by passing these laws, we may be able to prevent future tragedies and show that Lavern did not die in vain.     

 

Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Labor Report Urges Study Of A Federal Role In State Workers’ Comp Laws

Howard Berkes and Michael Grabell have been investigating the decline of workers compensation for Pro Publica and NPR.

Howard Berkes and Michael Grabell have been shining a light on the deterioration of state workers’ compensation benefits over the last decade. A new U.S. Department of Labor report bolsters their investigative journalism, noting that those hurt on the job are at “great risk of falling into poverty” because state workers’ compensation systems are failing to provide them with adequate benefits.

The Workers Injury Litigation Group (WILG) has been fighting against this decline for 20 years, and we will continue to advocate for fair benefits for injured workers. The following is a summary of Mr. Berkes and Grabell’s recent article:

A “race to the bottom” in state workers’ compensation laws has the Labor Department calling for “exploration” of federal oversight and federal minimum benefits.

“Working people are at great risk of falling into poverty,” the agency says in a new report on changes in state workers’ comp laws. Those changes have resulted in “the failure of state workers’ compensation systems to provide [injured workers] with adequate benefits.”

In the last decade, the report notes, states across the country have enacted new laws, policies and procedures “which have limited benefits, reduced the likelihood of successful application for workers’ compensation benefits, and/or discouraged injured workers from applying for benefits.”

The 44-page report was prompted by a letter last fall from 10 prominent Democratic lawmakers, who urged Labor Department action to protect injured workers in the wake of a ProPublica/NPR series on changes in workers’ comp laws in 33 states.

The ProPublica/NPR stories featured injured workers who lost their homes, were denied surgeries or were even denied prosthetic devices recommended by their doctors.

A “race to the bottom” in state workers’ compensation laws has the Labor Department calling for “exploration” of federal oversight and federal minimum benefits.

“Working people are at great risk of falling into poverty,” the agency says in a new report on changes in state workers’ comp laws. Those changes have resulted in “the failure of state workers’ compensation systems to provide [injured workers] with adequate benefits.”

In the last decade, the report notes, states across the country have enacted new laws, policies and procedures “which have limited benefits, reduced the likelihood of successful application for workers’ compensation benefits, and/or discouraged injured workers from applying for benefits.”

The 44-page report was prompted by a letter last fall from 10 prominent Democratic lawmakers, who urged Labor Department action to protect injured workers in the wake of a ProPublica/NPR series on changes in workers’ comp laws in 33 states.

The ProPublica/NPR stories featured injured workers who lost their homes, were denied surgeries or were even denied prosthetic devices recommended by their doctors.

“The current situation warrants a significant change in approach in order to address the inadequacies of the system,” the report says.

That’s where federal intervention comes in. The Labor Department calls for “exploration” of “the establishment of standards that would trigger increased federal oversight if workers’ compensation programs fail to meet those standards.”

The agency also suggests a fresh look at reestablishing a 1972 Nixon administration commission that recommended minimum benefits and urged Congress to act if states failed to comply.

“In this critical area of the social safety net, the federal government has basically abdicated any responsibility,” says Labor Secretary Thomas Perez.

Without minimum federal standards for workers’ comp benefits, Perez adds, the current system “is really putting workers who are hurt on the job on a pathway to poverty.”

Prior to the report’s release, employers, insurance companies and others involved in workers’ comp programs expressed alarm at the possibility of federal intervention.

“There has never been federal ‘oversight of state workers’ compensation programs’,” says a statement posted on the website of a group called Strategic Services on Unemployment and Workers’ Compensation, which says it represents the workers’ comp interests of the business community.

“Federal requirements imposed on a national basis would be inconsistent with the state workers’ compensation system, which has been in place for more than 100 years without federal oversight,” the group wrote.

Federal minimum benefits could ensure that injured workers across the country would not receive lesser benefits for often shorter periods of time simply because they lived in a state where lawmakers dramatically cut workers’ comp costs for employers.

“This is a system with no federal minimum standards and absolutely no federal oversight,” says Deborah Berkowitz, a senior fellow at the National Employment Law Project. “Clearly, more federal oversight is necessary to assure that that this system works for those most in need of assistance.”

No direct administrative or legislative action is proposed in the report, but Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, says he’s “drafting legislation to address many of the troubling findings laid out in this report and will be working with my colleagues to advance it in the next Congress.” 

Brown echoes Perez, saying injuries on the job shouldn’t force workers into poverty.

“But without a basic standard for workers compensation programs, that’s exactly what’s happening in too many states across the country,” Brown adds. 

Another incentive for federal involvement, the report notes, is a shift of billions of dollars in workplace injury costs to taxpayers when state workers’ comp benefits fall short and workers are forced to turn to Medicare and Social Security for treatment and lost wages.

The report lays the groundwork for federal intervention by providing an extensive section detailing the government’s role in promoting national benefits standards in both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back to 1939.

But many in the workers’ comp world consider workplace injury policy and regulation a states’ right and any prospect of a controlling federal role will likely face stiff resistance.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

On The Ground In Albany: Lobbying To Preserve Your Benefits

The New York State Capitol

For the last five years, lawyers practicing in the field of Workers’ Compensation have used their voices to educate our State Senators and Assembly members on issues impacting injured workers. In keeping with this strategy, last week I attended Lobby Day in Albany with 70 other colleagues, including 11 members from my law firm, and we met with more than 50 of our state leaders. There was an added sense of urgency this time as Governor Cuomo has proposed a number of changes in the budget that would adversely affect those who get injured on the job.

In past few weeks, I have written about these budget proposals as part of the continuing attacks on injured workers and the less-than-adequate benefits they currently receive. The proposed budget amendment would grossly and negatively impact the ability of an injured worker to get a full and fair settlement. The law currently directs the insurance carrier to deposit the present value of a settlement into a fund to ensure that this money is available in the future or in the alternative, to settle the claim with the injured worker. Many insurance carriers opt to pay the money to the injured worker instead of depositing it into a fund. Without the worry of this deposit, there is less of an incentive for the insurance company to settle a claim that could lead to lengthy and time-consuming litigation with the injured worker receiving minimal or no benefits until the law judge makes a decision.

One of the proposed measures would give the Workers’ Compensation Board the power to qualify doctors and to bar them from the system. This is unacceptable. Doctors should be regulated by other doctors instead of by bureaucrats.

Even more egregious are the attacks and restrictions on due process. Injured workers should be entitled to a fair and impartial hearing. The budget proposals would remove the right of injured workers to have their cases heard by the same judge. The ability to direct policy and decisions would open the door to potential abuse. Additionally, if injured workers wish to appeal a detrimental decision, the appeal would be decided by one individual as opposed to the current three-panel of commissioners. Current law provides for the appointment of commissioners by the governor with approval by the legislature, which provides for some checks and balances. The Workers’ Compensation Board would instead be given unchecked power to control the outcome of every decision.

The Business Counsel was in favor of many of these changes as it felt they would help decrease costs and increase profit margin. However, an analysis by the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board (NYCIRB) of the expected financial impacts of the governor’s proposed reforms found no solid evidence that these changes would result in any meaningful cost savings. At this juncture, one has to wonder why these proposed changes are still being pursued by the governor. Anyone who has been injured on the job, or knows someone who has been injured, knows that it has become more and more difficult to navigate the process to obtain benefits. We do need reform, but it should be done to improve the lives of those injured at work. These proposals are certainly not in workers’ best interest. If you agree and want to know what you can do, please click here to sign the petition to stop the further erosion of workers’ compensation. We need to insure that those vulnerable members of our families, community, and state are not abandoned by their government for wrongly perceived cost- cutting measures.

 

Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy  Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Asking Congress To Make Our Laws More Fair To Injured Workers

US Capitol buildingDuring our trip to Washington D.C. last week, we spoke to elected officials about a few laws that impact injured workers. One of the laws is a proposed amendment to The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA), the law the provides medical benefits and wage replacement to injured Federal employees. It is the federal version of the otherwise state-based workers’ compensation system. The amendment is being proposed as part of S. 1789, the Postal Service Reform Act (PSRA).

We wanted to share some highlights of why the proposed changes are harmful to injured workers. The most damaging parts of the legislation are discussed below:

  1. Conversion of entitlement at retirement age 
    §302 of the bill would reduce the compensation rate to 50% of wages (for employees on total disability) and to 50% of wage-earning capacity loss (for employees receiving partial disability) once any of those employees have reached retirement age.This proposal would reduce by up to 1/3 (from 75% or 66-2/3% of wage loss to 50% of wage loss) the compensation for disabled employees who have reached retirement age. Given that many people (including members of the House and Senate and their staffs, all of whom are covered by FECA) work the traditional retirement age, this is unfair and raises issues of age discrimination. Reduction to 50% of wages is drastic, and Continue reading →

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.