Florida Workers' Compensation Lawyer & Attorney : David A. McCranie : Serving Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa, St Petersburg

On 7/31/2008, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), joined by Senators Obama, McCain and Clinton, among others, introduced S. 3406, which is again designated the "ADA Amendments Act of 2008."  The bill is quite similar to H.R. 3195 on which the Senate conducted a hearing last month. One of the concerns raised at that hearing was H.R.3195's definition of the term "substantially limits" to mean "materially restricts."

 

Under the new bill, the term "materially restricts" has been deleted.  In its place, the bill says simply that "[t]he term 'substantially limits' shall be interpreted consistently with the findings and purposes of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008."  In Section 2, "Findings and Purposes," the bill criticizes several U.S. Supreme Court decisions and sets forth Congress's intent that the definition of "disability" be interpreted broadly.

 

With both major presidential candidates signing on to the bill, I'd guess that we're likely to see it pass.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 3195), which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on June 27, is now being considered by the U.S. Senate.  The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions conducted a hearing on the bill on July 15.  You can watch the proceedings and read the testimony of the various witnesses here.

 

Much of the testimony was supportive of the legislation.  But Andrew Grossman of the Heritage Foundation expressed concern in his testimony over what he believes is an ill-advised amendment to the definition of "disability" under the Act.  Although the bill still defines "disability" as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities," the term "substantially limits" has now been defined as "materially restricts" - supposedly a less restrictive definition than the Supreme Court of the United States has given that term in previous court decisions.  See, e.g., Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999); Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002).  But Mr. Grossman points out that the term "materially restricts" is itself not defined in the statute and thus is susceptible to varying interpretations.  The White House has expressed similar concerns in this June 24 Statement of Administration Policy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Charlotte Observer continued its coverage of the underreporting of workplace injuries on 7/3/2008 with this story.  According to the report, the U.S. Senate has appropriated additional money to fund a recordkeeping enforcement unit within OSHA.  The unit would examine company injury logs and compare them to other available information to determine whether the employer has violated OSHA by failing to record workplace injuries.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor is investigating that question.  And in a majority staff report entitled Hidden Tragedy: Underreporting of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses, the committee answered the question in the affirmative.  Why are they being underreported?  Because, according to the report:

• Certain categories of workers, accounting for a significant portion of the workforce,are excluded from the survey.
• Occupational illnesses are particularly difficult to identify as work-related.
• Immigrants are less likely to report workplace injuries and illnesses.
• Workers are often reluctant to apply for workers’ compensation.
• The musculoskeletal disorder column has been taken off of the OSHA 300 Log.
• Some workers and employers do not understand the reporting system.
• Employers have an incentive to underreport.

What incentives do employers have to underreport?

• Low injury and illness rates decrease the chance of being inspected by OSHA
• Low numbers of injuries and illnesses decrease workers' compensation expenses.
• Low injury and illness rates can earn businesses bonuses and incentives
• Low injury and illness numbers look good to the public and to customers

What methods do employers use to discourage reporting?

• Direct intimidation of workers.
• Bringing seriously injured workers right back to work.
• Discouraging appropriate medical attention.
• Discouraging physicians from reporting injuries or diagnosing illnesses.
• "No fault" absentee policies.
• Safety incentive programs and games.
• Manager incentives and bonuses
• Drug testing after every accident or injury.
• Contractors and contracting out dangerous work
• Missclassification of workers.

These hearings were apparently prompted by The Charlotte Observer's six-part series entitled "The Cruelest Cuts," an indictment of North Carolina's poultry industry.  The PBS program Expose also covered the story in a report entitled "20,000 Cuts a Day." 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 which I wrote about two days ago passed the U.S. House of Representatives on 6/25/2008 by a vote of 402-17, with 15 members not voting.  The Senate will now take up the legislation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One question I get from clients fairly often is whether an employer is required to continue offering employment to an injured worker following his on-the-job accident.  As far as the Florida Workers' Compensation Law is concerned, the answer is no.  Although §440.15(6), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994), formerly imposed a fine on an employer with more than 50 or more employees which failed to offer appropriate employment within 30 days after the employee reached maximum medical improvement, that section was repealed in 2003. (Of course, §440.205 prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for pursuing a workers' compensation claim, but that's another story).

 

And although the Americans with Disabilities Act does prohibit discrimination by a covered employer (i.e., one with 15 or more employees) against an individual with a disability with regard to the hiring or discharge of its employees, because of several decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court which defined "disability" fairly restrictively, many individuals have found it difficult to obtain relief under the Act.  The "ADA Amendments Act of 2008," however, now pending before Congress with apparently large bipartisan support, is designed to overrule those decisions.  You can read a report about the proposed legislation here.  More later on how  the legislation might affect an employer's obligations to rehire or retain its workers disabled because of an on-the-job accident.

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Howser v. ABB, Inc., a 3/27/2008 decision from the federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals involving the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), illustrates again how workers' compensation issues sometimes become intertwined with other employment laws.  (The FLSA requires covered employers to pay a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay in certain circumstances to covered employees). 

 

Cynthia Howser was injured in an on-the-job accident while working for ABB, Inc., in Missouri.  ABB, through its workers' compensation claims administrator, Gallagher Bassett, accepted the compensability of the accident under Missouri law.  Howser required extensive medical care but was able to continue working following her accident.  Eventually, Gallagher Bassett  scheduled a medical appointment for Howser, but the appointment was scheduled to occur during her working hours, forcing her to miss time from work.  The purpose of the appointment, according to Gallagher Bassett, was to re-evaluate her work-related injuries. 

 

ABB offered to compensate Howser for the time she missed from work to attend the appointment but told her that it would deduct the hours missed from her accrued paid leave benefits.  Howser declined the offer and opted instead to take an unpaid excused absence so she would not lose any of her accrued leave benefits.  Because she did so, she was never compensated for the 3.8 hours of time she missed to attend the appointment. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As I wrote here, when an injured worker agrees to a "washout" of his rights to past and future benefits for an on-the-job accident pursuant to§440.20(11), Fla. Stat., employers and carriers in Florida also routinely require the execution of a "general release" in which the injured worker waives his right to any other employment-related claims as well.  Are such "general releases" really effective to waive all such claims?  In Taylor v Progress Energy Inc., the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a release in which the employee purported to waive his FMLA rights as part of a severance agreement was ineffective because it was obtained without either court approval or the approval of the Department of Labor.

 

Progress Energy has now filed this petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States seeking review of the Fourth Circuit's decision.  The petition alleges that the Fourth Circuit's decision is in conflict with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Faris v. Williams WPC-I, Inc.  For more on the petition and this issue, see this post at SCOTUSblog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Although this isn't a workers' compensation case, I think it illustrates how an employer's decision to terminate a disabled worker's employment for violation of  one of its policies can have unintended consequences.

 

This Florida employer had adopted what it called a "no-fault" policy for absences and tardiness.  Under its policy, an employee's absence from or tardiness to work was neither "excused" nor "unexcused."  No doctor's excuse was required.  However, each employee was allotted a certain number of "occurrences" before disciplinary action was taken, and each tardy - no matter what the reason - counted as one-half of an "occurrence."  The employee in this case was a paraplegic who despite his condition had been performing his job satisfactorily for 17 years.  Nevertheless, his medical problems routinely made him late for work.  Because of his disability-related tardiness, he eventually earned a sufficient number of "occurrences" under the employer's new policy to warrant his dismissal.

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When settling a claimant's right to future benefits arising under the Florida Workers' Compensation Act, it has become standard practice for the employer/carrier also to require the claimant to execute a "general release" of any other employment-related claims which he might have as well.  The effectiveness of this practice has been called into question, however, in a recent case from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) allows an employee to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for, among other things, a "serious health condition."  As the FMLA Blog points out in this post, a federal regulation, 29 C.F.R. s.825.220(d), provdes that "[e]mployees cannot waive, nor may employers induce employees to waive, their rights under FMLA."  In Taylor v. Progress Energy, Inc., decided on 7/3/2007, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that this regulation means exactly what it says - it prohibits an employee from waiving his FMLA rights without approval by a court or by the Department of Labor.

 

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Florida) has not addressed this question.  But if the Fourth Circuit's reasoning is adopted, then post-accident agreements which purport to release an employee's rights under the FMLA without prior approval will be ineffective.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks