Thursday, June 28, 2007

Here are the latest Treatment Guidelines


A link is provided so you can see what the latest treatment guidelines are for Colorado physicians to treat in areas like chronic pain, lumbar, cervical, cumulative trauma and the like. These Guidelines are made part of the workers comp rules so they are important. Certainly the treating doctor should be able to treat as needed but the Guidelines are relevant to any treatment.

Monday, June 25, 2007

Injured Worker Comments, Suggestions or Questions?

I've set it up so that anyone can comment or leave questions for me. Just click on the comments and leave your question or suggestion...but do so either anonymously or by first name only please. While I cannot guarantee an answer or reply I promise to look at any such comment/suggestion/question. Sometimes we just need to vent or provide our own personal views so if you feel the need then you are free to post your comment on our blog. For example I personally feel the workers comp system in Colorado can be improved upon with better laws. Change can come when we stand up and voice our concerns. Silence only validates the status quo. But if you need professional or individual advice and do not have a lawyer...call my office at 719-596-8900 or email me at workcomp@usa.net.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Workers Comp does not cover all losses


It is important to emphasize that coverage is limited in work injury cases. Workers comp is a creature of statute which sets forth what is covered and what is not. The biggest problem is when someone has a loss of his or her trade or occupation because of a permanent injury and permanent restrictions. Usually some permanent benefits are paid and an effort can be made to maximize these but nothing is paid for the loss of a trade or occupation unless you are permanently and totally disabled. Vocational rehab is seldom offered by the insurer so if this is your situation contact the State Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. This area remains an area of concern and on my wishlist for legislative change. I would strongly urge those who may be in this situation to consult with an experienced workers comp attorney. Never assume the insurers position on your entitlement to benefits is accurate. Moreover if the company designated doctor has released you without impairment or restrictions do not assume that is correct either. You do have recourse here. On numerous occasions such doctors have said no permanent injury and been flat wrong.

Friday, June 08, 2007

Social Security Backlogged


Both nationally and locally the process to obtain Social Security disability benefits is backlogged especially at the hearing level. If denied benefits a claimant can, if he timely acts, appeal for a hearing. It is taking over a year or longer to obtain that hearing in Colorado. Elsewhere the wait can even be longer. It does appear that justice delayed is justice denied. Hopefully over time this backlog can be cleaned up. At my last hearing the hearing Judge was in Tucson and we had the hearing by way of television. Documents are now being scanned in to make a CD so that they are easily handled. All of this provides some hope but it will take some time to speed up the process. Sometimes though it seems like one step forward and two steps back.

Saturday, June 02, 2007

May 31, 2007 Court case on prosthetics


If your artificial hip is injured on the job is it covered to receive benefits? Yes said the Court of Appeals in this case. The insurer tried to rely on an old Colorado case that said if your wooden leg was hurt it was not a personal injury just injury to property which was not covered by workers comp. The court said the statutes now do cover injury to prosthetic devices so that old case no longer applies. But can you imagine in that old case being told it's your problem not a workers comp problem since only live legs are covered? At least now its covered though the statute does define what is covered and what is not. In any event here is a link to the case:
http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?OpinionID=6163&CourtID=1