tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-366623212024-03-19T04:30:52.395-06:00Colorado Workers Comp BlogA blog by a retired Colorado attorney on legal news, views and tips on Colorado Workers Compensation and Social Security Disability. Written from the point of view of the injured or disabled worker.Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.comBlogger426125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-4199309219684610742017-02-23T12:54:00.000-07:002017-02-23T12:54:12.665-07:00Colorado Supreme Court case----YoungquistDecided February 2017 is the <a href="http://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/Sections/Opinions/2-21-17/16SC283.pdf?ver=2017-02-21-120541-233">Youngquist</a> case. This case was an appeal from the lower court and addressed the issue<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzFDCc4MiSg-J77h4956e2RQ5RYYoB6m20gwYe0bzvB9V5LtOVLXVr5jowMSOA0Hms_c6pRtPPBZ58UgzyWECgStZMdJ28b4_FQKACjBdR_MoLbtLF0FI2uL0DFFzmgNByPTis/s1600/judge1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzFDCc4MiSg-J77h4956e2RQ5RYYoB6m20gwYe0bzvB9V5LtOVLXVr5jowMSOA0Hms_c6pRtPPBZ58UgzyWECgStZMdJ28b4_FQKACjBdR_MoLbtLF0FI2uL0DFFzmgNByPTis/s200/judge1.jpg" width="200" height="164" /></a></div> of jurisdiction over a non Colorado business. The employer was a North Dakota business that hired a Colorado resident by phone and sent him a travel ticket. He was injured outside of Colorado but sought to use the Colorado workers compensation system. As a claimant he was successful at a hearing and at appeals until the last stop was the Colorado Supreme Court. That court decided that there was no jurisdiction over the employer so Colorado could not proceed on the claim. The key point in cases like this is the extent of contacts by the out of state business with Colorado. If deemed significant then Colorado would have the power to decide the entire claim. But fundamental fairness does require enough contact with the state for Colorado to exercise jurisdiction. In this case the court determined there was not much to connect Colorado to this employer. There was a phone call and the travel ticket was sent by email. There was no presence of anyone acting for the business in Colorado. There was no business being conducted in Colorado. Cases like this are decided on very specific facts but they do tell us that being a Colorado resident is not enough by itself for you to file a Colorado claim. Now most cases involve work being done in Colorado so the facts of this case are not common but it is important to realize that the Colorado Supreme Court does at times get involved in work injury cases. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-11534568061546819762016-12-20T22:37:00.000-07:002016-12-20T22:37:25.720-07:00Nothing MuchNot very much happening in my field. We still have the monthly <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/cdle/node/26976">Brown Bag seminar</a> which is posted online for anyone to watch and read the cases. But then I have posted about this excellent source of updated cases for quite a while. And you can access what is posted in Colorado workers comp at this <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/cdle/dwc">website</a>. I thought it best to just remind you of this as the website contains a great deal of information. However there have been no newly published decisions in the area lately so this blog has been quiet for a while. Still there are cases which the Brown Bag does address to keep you apprised of issues coming up in the field. At the website you can also see what is the latest legislation and treatment guidelines and much much more. Anyway I did want you to know that the system keeps rolling along. Sometimes that means good things happen and sometimes bad things. Since this will probably be the last post for 2016 let me wish all of you the very best in the new year. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-63186601703810864882016-09-02T16:54:00.000-06:002016-09-02T16:54:20.842-06:00Brown Bag for August 2016As we have previously indicated the Brown Bag seminar has been held once a month and it is designed to review new cases. Those cases may be court cases or appeals from the original workers comp hearing which goes to the Industrial Claim Appeals Panel (ICAP). In August 2016 we had another review. The <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Case_Law_Aug_18.pdf">August case decisions</a> can be read and are available for all interested people. Additionally the<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6yMtK3aeaSoWFeg8xl2hyns55xchF3tUauO97trHHXK_Td7nuPb1M9UZ8S5xcUMd4SI_5gRw3b15UK8zsXYtjVxr9Bq4un4lw4LSl4q4TDHj5Klngot9A2ZI5o9h28FEPS15H/s1600/judge1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6yMtK3aeaSoWFeg8xl2hyns55xchF3tUauO97trHHXK_Td7nuPb1M9UZ8S5xcUMd4SI_5gRw3b15UK8zsXYtjVxr9Bq4un4lw4LSl4q4TDHj5Klngot9A2ZI5o9h28FEPS15H/s200/judge1.jpg" width="200" height="164" /></a></div> seminar lecturer has a video where you can see his own review of each case. When you are seeking any of this material including the video you can access it <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/cdle/node/26976">here</a>. In this latest month I read several interesting cases but I point out two in this post. Hutchison is an ICAP case which is a very unfortunate situation. The claimant was only able to cover one-third of his medical expenses for a surgery. He had pre-existing causal factors such that only one-third of his work aggravation came from work activities. My view is that his need for surgery came from the aggravation from his work activities so it should have been fully covered but the case reminds us that apportionment can occur in workers compensation. Read the case for the analysis of ICAP. The other case is the Hoff case which was a court of appeals decision. You can read the case and see that the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the earlier decision by the Court of Appeals. The facts relate to a cancelled workers comp insurance policy so it is not a common circumstance but it does let us know that the appeal of a workers comp decision at hearing can sometimes reach the Supreme Court. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-68972259130360833562016-08-18T13:55:00.000-06:002016-08-18T13:55:15.336-06:00All About Claims newsletter with Legislative AdvisoryIn June the Division issued another newsletter and it is quite significant.<a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AAC_Issue_45.pdf"> The June newsletter</a> contains quite a bit of information on the latest legislation concerning<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW48dlJEPhSVSL96VGIBbd4vp5ecZMA2r7P-aDju-o7tZYw7s0Osyv2eYL-vAO1oPDkG-PYuob6J5yAxOi6FWI6xAub9b4FY9R5MpEeXYHZUQpFCQsuABSb0ZLSfL4Q8Y0Uc8Z/s1600/newspaper_3.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW48dlJEPhSVSL96VGIBbd4vp5ecZMA2r7P-aDju-o7tZYw7s0Osyv2eYL-vAO1oPDkG-PYuob6J5yAxOi6FWI6xAub9b4FY9R5MpEeXYHZUQpFCQsuABSb0ZLSfL4Q8Y0Uc8Z/s200/newspaper_3.gif" width="200" height="164" /></a></div> workers compensation. It is very detailed and includes some changes in requesting expedited hearings and in requesting a change of physician. It lets you link to the form to be used for change of physician. Use of the form is now mandatory. You are encouraged to print out a copy of this newsletter and review it carefully. The newsletter also has a chart on the maximum rates and indicates there is a new settlement agreement form which you can link to see. So this newsletter is packed full of current information and you should review it in its entirety. I held off posting about this until now because some of this is just now becoming effective. As always the Division has issued these newsletters from time to time as a way to keep us all updated on workers comp developments. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-37297547386992699962016-05-02T12:42:00.000-06:002016-05-02T12:42:08.697-06:00Brown Bag March 2016 includes Youngquist Court caseAs usually happens there was a Brown Bag lunch seminar presented by Judge Eley. The presentation is in a <a href="https://vimeo.com/160290315">Part 1</a> and a <a href="https://vimeo.com/160292826">Part 2</a>. The reading material which consists of the actual cases for March 2016 is <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Case_Law_Materials_March_17_2016<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrzje92GsMZ7k2YjtBBLZ7mf6mTlUdxgCelCIYkjNp5j7ZhEwkrIlDLDg8TLxZDaECoR_lT96O4X-lzjKy1Nf_KsfojNMsI05nI1oGYtzedFmPWghiZnIacGYy4_xDnolkVXgE/s1600/judge1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrzje92GsMZ7k2YjtBBLZ7mf6mTlUdxgCelCIYkjNp5j7ZhEwkrIlDLDg8TLxZDaECoR_lT96O4X-lzjKy1Nf_KsfojNMsI05nI1oGYtzedFmPWghiZnIacGYy4_xDnolkVXgE/s200/judge1.jpg" /></a></div>. <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Case_Law_Materials_March_17_2016.pdf">available here</a>. These materials include the recent published case of Youngquist which concerned an out of state company being held to the Colorado Workers Compensation law of Colorado. The employer Youngquist said it was not subject to Colorado law because it conducts no business in the state. However it was determined that the claimant was hired in Colorado and by statute if injured within 6 months of leaving Colorado then Colorado has jurisdiction over the claim. In the case the claimant was injured within days of starting his job. There was a denial in the state where the claimant was injured so he filed in Colorado and had a hearing where it was determined to be compensable. The defense was the claimant had a preexisting condition but claimant asserted it worsened with the injury and Colorado agreed. Then a 50% penalty was imposed because the employer had no Colorado insurance. The employer appealed and asserted a denial of due process but the court upheld the hearing judge. This included the 50% penalty which is mandatory by law. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-90955337258288948402016-04-23T17:37:00.000-06:002016-04-23T17:37:26.930-06:00All About Claims Issue 44From time to time the Division issues a newsletter.<a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AAC_Issue_44.pdf"> The latest newsletter is issue number 44</a> and once again it seeks to bring us up to date. It alerts us to a new prehearing judge, John Steninger. It also discusses certain medical fees<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJvwxrD0WG9YB0Jt00VhnmfUZZ4ufZmXddasEtrn7NEjR6IxZRxRTa00dtSGfBpllNAFhHbfzDLZ5y9hjL8PwksEOSBAXtEzX8bOp7zNdJCLBYRfxITJpmSk19ltNo0TuXZ2B3/s1600/newspaper_thumbnail.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJvwxrD0WG9YB0Jt00VhnmfUZZ4ufZmXddasEtrn7NEjR6IxZRxRTa00dtSGfBpllNAFhHbfzDLZ5y9hjL8PwksEOSBAXtEzX8bOp7zNdJCLBYRfxITJpmSk19ltNo0TuXZ2B3/s200/newspaper_thumbnail.jpg" /></a></div> and generally provides other information such as a link to a new adjusters guide. For those with claims or those in this field you should always read these newsletters. They are informal but still insightful on topics of interest to many of us. At the Division website they even have <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdle/wc-library-all-about-claims-newsletters">archives</a> of such newsletters for your perusal. It is quite nice to give us a heads up about matters of importance to many of us. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-43041848880542198422016-02-22T18:08:00.000-07:002016-02-22T18:08:39.601-07:00Keel Court of Appeals caseIn January 2016 the Colorado Court of Appeals decided the <a href="http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=10062&courtid=1">Keel</a> case. The case involved someone from out of state coming into Colorado to work. He died in an<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQj3_Snr71-bBJHamktzQkNVONPUUIONx6V0kJCu9-BCsegC615LlWJzFJp5Kdd_MpS3XlXNQIZNWABJubu6OMBxesOcHBLyiyniQPygrdLDuu43hAbniUzwatAufygqjIy1_E/s1600/judge1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQj3_Snr71-bBJHamktzQkNVONPUUIONx6V0kJCu9-BCsegC615LlWJzFJp5Kdd_MpS3XlXNQIZNWABJubu6OMBxesOcHBLyiyniQPygrdLDuu43hAbniUzwatAufygqjIy1_E/s200/judge1.jpg" /></a></div> on the job injury. He received benefits in his home state. Colorado also had benefits which were applied for. The case concerned the offset that was given for his receipt of the out of state benefits. The court determined that the statutory law mandates only a partial offset so the Colorado benefits would be higher then that calculated by the lower decision. While this issue seldom comes up it does point out that most of the time a statute will be enforced as it is literally written. Benefits for claimants are sometimes reduced by the receipt of other benefits but often not as much as you might expect. It is always worthwhile to double check the math so that a claimants benefits are maximized. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-20918091943261250342015-12-02T17:39:00.000-07:002015-12-02T17:39:14.594-07:00The Latest Brown Bag of casesOn November 19th there was another <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/cdle/node/26976">Brown Bag seminar</a> by Prehearing Judge Eley that covered the recent notable cases. While there are no published cases from the appeals courts there were cases at the lower levels which we call ICAP (Industrial Claim Appeals Panel). These cases are the next level up after a hearing decision. They tell us what cases are being appealed. You are urged to listen to<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE7AOkJ25LUXefeiMiXxdF-rVZnqZmbNWElh2gcseVNyUrr2ykCGUsz-LOoA9Bz3i5F5TcrFxuGEaw4LYeAGVVTK_gwOeyLmuHlVJLYKVFlCl2ySfBFFbObqieWGws5rxnY29a/s1600/judge1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE7AOkJ25LUXefeiMiXxdF-rVZnqZmbNWElh2gcseVNyUrr2ykCGUsz-LOoA9Bz3i5F5TcrFxuGEaw4LYeAGVVTK_gwOeyLmuHlVJLYKVFlCl2ySfBFFbObqieWGws5rxnY29a/s200/judge1.jpg" /></a></div> the online materials for November. Attorneys can obtain continuing legal education credits by listening to these short seminars monthly but anyone can benefit by listening to the case review by Judge Eley. Moreover each month they also post the cases which you can read on your own. Perhaps the case which I found most interesting was the Baran case. It lets us know that the issue of permanent injury should be deferred until the DIME (Division Independent Medical Examination) is performed. There the other side wanted to close out the case but the claimant wanted to pursue a DIME. My experience with the DIME process is that in the vast majority of times it is better to go for it then to ignore your right to it. It does require a judgment call by the attorney or party but if properly done it can often greatly benefit a claimant. The treating physician is seldom independent and often can rate the injury as too low. He can even say treatment is over when another doctor may believe that more treatment can help. The DIME process is a great process to use provided you obtain a good physician for the exam. The selection process requires careful analysis and choice but an experienced attorney usually gains much for the claimant by using the process. In any event you can review the Baran case and other recent cases by reading or listening to this <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/cdle/node/26976">Brown Bag seminar for November 2015</a>.Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-22958559344205364352015-10-03T21:42:00.001-06:002015-10-03T21:42:21.320-06:00All About Claims...another newsletter!In September the Division issued another newsletter. Bravo! I certainly enjoy these newsletters and they provide quite a bit of information.This <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AAC_Issue_42.pdf">latest newsletter</a> has a great article about Pat Clisham another judge. It is really nice to<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnaD3dLm0NnPXso_qjf8qdqRc8hNVBTGZ2pIkmGPfAtM2n9Dt5d-idTPFkBs9aPup2BZU5c9fBT5zNwhbl1o-7M9WcjeTsPMBjBAdTpppJyZZm9pX_82ZVpGLruUKVIp-kEM9t/s1600/newspaper_3.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnaD3dLm0NnPXso_qjf8qdqRc8hNVBTGZ2pIkmGPfAtM2n9Dt5d-idTPFkBs9aPup2BZU5c9fBT5zNwhbl1o-7M9WcjeTsPMBjBAdTpppJyZZm9pX_82ZVpGLruUKVIp-kEM9t/s200/newspaper_3.gif" /></a></div> learn about the judges. This particular judge I am aware of from my practice. Even when she was working for the other side I always felt she was fair and reasonable. I am sure she will be a great addition to the workers comp system. There is other information in the newsletter. For example the Division has issued a new article for employees in Spanish. In any event I encourage you to take a look at the newsletter because it helps us humanize the system and it gives us a heads up on some matters. The workers comp system is not as impersonal or impossible to comprehend as you might think. No doubt it is always preferable to hire yourself an attorney but the website maintained at the Division is very informative. In any event why not read this <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AAC_Issue_42.pdf">latest newsletter</a>?Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-7558915990622023872015-09-16T17:32:00.000-06:002015-09-16T17:32:25.285-06:00Colorado Springs Hearing Offices Have ChangedI have noticed that the Colorado Springs hearing offices have changed to a <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/oac/news/oac-southern-regional-office-has-moved">new location</a>. I no longer practice given I am retired but while checking the website I now see the change of location. The previous offices are not that far from the <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/oac/news/oac-southern-regional-office-has-moved">new location</a> but I always felt the old location was a bit cramped. Finding a place to sit down with a claimant to review before a hearing was sometimes difficult. If there were several witnesses it became quite cumbersome. Hopefully the new location is more convenient and spacious. A number of years ago the workers comp hearings were held at the local courthouse. The courthouse needed that space to expand its services and the state then sought space elsewhere. I recall having hearings behind a library in a schoolroom. The last offices were an improvement but I suspect <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/oac/news/oac-southern-regional-office-has-moved">the new location</a> is even better. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-83865746640287732302015-08-08T17:48:00.000-06:002015-08-08T17:48:35.680-06:00All About Claims newsletter August 2015The Division has just published a new newsletter for <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AAC_Issue_41.pdf">August 2015</a>. Usually these newsletters are very helpful in providing insight into the Division and giving you a heads up on various legal matters. This month the focus is on Prehearing conference Judge Craig Eley. For my cases and myself Judge Eley has been great. He does<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhL8NdvmcyRKBKmWCQ7deoMa-dvreq4qT19z8S73FlyYFGZFSqyx7TJ5hHnlyfNZ6XSLZFbirdhQShyCYPryJXE3jsbXJcA8Rd8tgb2WJIZsQ9GGcqS8wEMWAuP8SFG4PH7mEAH/s1600/newspaper_thumbnail.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhL8NdvmcyRKBKmWCQ7deoMa-dvreq4qT19z8S73FlyYFGZFSqyx7TJ5hHnlyfNZ6XSLZFbirdhQShyCYPryJXE3jsbXJcA8Rd8tgb2WJIZsQ9GGcqS8wEMWAuP8SFG4PH7mEAH/s320/newspaper_thumbnail.jpg" /></a></div> more then decide matters. He educates many of us with his Brown Bag monthly lunch seminar on interesting recent cases. He does so often with great humor. He helps settle cases by being the go between in a settlement conference. His story is in the <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AAC_Issue_41.pdf">newsletter</a> and it's enjoyable to read about this popular and capable judge. At present he is working part time at the Division. I for one certainly hope he continues on for many years to come. By the way in the story Judge Eley tells us about one hobby he has, that of beekeeping. By day he deals with attorneys but goes home to relax with 60000 venomous insects. Also the newsletter alerts us to other things. There is a link to the latest laws and it provides a link to a guide for adjusters. You never know what these newsletters contain but they are always an interesting and even light hearted read. <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AAC_Issue_41.pdf">August 2015</a> gives us another excellent article and information.Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-60968844167406105562015-07-29T21:59:00.001-06:002015-07-29T21:59:43.217-06:00Oil Worker case makes the Denver PostIt is not often that a initial workers comp hearing decision makes the papers but this one did. It is not an appeals court case but the <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28552933/colorado-judge-awards-benefits-from-oil-patch-death">article</a> indicates it will not be appealed. The case involved a deceased oil worker. It appears he was tank gauging or opening a tank to<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6yH4nMxS9RcD1tsQ4VxLdfwP1gkPY67ZO65cFiWodbo98cJO4EQ9RDTnPmWPDkAsPg3XyBJdVGfmHlj_WkCBEmpWle8OZTwjNKF1Ko7PauB-MQ1S3bJCE_2HDnbRw-cYjPi6Z/s1600/newspaper_thumbnail.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6yH4nMxS9RcD1tsQ4VxLdfwP1gkPY67ZO65cFiWodbo98cJO4EQ9RDTnPmWPDkAsPg3XyBJdVGfmHlj_WkCBEmpWle8OZTwjNKF1Ko7PauB-MQ1S3bJCE_2HDnbRw-cYjPi6Z/s320/newspaper_thumbnail.jpg" /></a></div> measure oil levels. He inhaled a toxic mixture of deadly chemicals and died. The case was contested by asserting the workers diabetes, hypertension and coronary artery disease caused his demise. Apparently there have been several deaths doing this work activity and the thought was those deaths were natural from health problems but this is changing. In this case after a two day hearing the judge ruled it was a valid claim for a work injury. The Denver Post picked up on the case and wrote about the decision. You can read their article by <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28552933/colorado-judge-awards-benefits-from-oil-patch-death">clicking here</a>. It reports the widow will receive $530 a week for life. It is clear that the claimants attorney did a very good job. It also sets the stage for others to make claims and it may also lead to increased safety efforts. Bravo!Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-71430150676316265102015-07-27T18:16:00.001-06:002015-07-27T18:16:49.044-06:00Beware Social Media!It should come as no surprise that a claimant has to be concerned about social media. An injured worker will usually have restrictions and limitations. The other side will often conduct an investigation. They may follow you and video your activities. It is most common to follow you when you shop or go meet your friends. Then their vocational expert or <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrqkycrobIOhHy4YkSTcXnGhwvPIfcMLTG2Q3BqunOQ2sPARoU1vP4b8iMvrmeZDttUSQR12LSG0P6eXIhz0fbhCJaYtDhfDLD6g5qTpkVE1q6dmuCntnrwJah62caZQ7KCj97/s1600/SpyTools-MainMenu+%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrqkycrobIOhHy4YkSTcXnGhwvPIfcMLTG2Q3BqunOQ2sPARoU1vP4b8iMvrmeZDttUSQR12LSG0P6eXIhz0fbhCJaYtDhfDLD6g5qTpkVE1q6dmuCntnrwJah62caZQ7KCj97/s200/SpyTools-MainMenu+%25281%2529.jpg" /></a></div>medical doctor may testify against you. So clearly a claimant must be careful. It does not matter you were taking pain killers or that you did something one time. A video can be devastating to your claim. Yet there is another matter to consider. It seems like everyone is involved in social media. Facebook, twitter, dating sites, forums, photo sites and other sites are there for you to post about yourself. Insurance adjustors or attorneys are seeking out what they can to limit your claim. So what you post may come back to harm your claim. It may seem innocent enough but a post that you worked in your garden or changed a tire or even just went on a hike may be not good for your case. Any sort of sports activities posted by you may hurt your case. Even trips you take might be used against you. My best view of all this is to completely stop your posts and photos or at least limit them because whatever you post may be used against you. Be careful! By having a claim you are fair game for being followed, snooped on and watched in whatever you do. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-27925420100929857682015-06-16T10:51:00.000-06:002015-06-16T10:51:25.414-06:00The Coats case or when is medical pot legal and illegalYesterday the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in the <a href="http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9809&courtid=2">Coats</a> case. In that case a disabled employee for the Dish Network was terminated under its no tolerance drug policy. The worker was productive but required medically prescribed marijuana. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOu9rVsu3LMOi-ri4MyckwWVccQrIoRudLkHXkM3jU6KEVjs8JecprdCGcqDYGQTLqU346-BgdqwrTjLoSWXpWebvm7uoX7Y62c8eeyowtjv3u2fp_wy6c8a_5E7If_4thdRj5/s1600/judge1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOu9rVsu3LMOi-ri4MyckwWVccQrIoRudLkHXkM3jU6KEVjs8JecprdCGcqDYGQTLqU346-BgdqwrTjLoSWXpWebvm7uoX7Y62c8eeyowtjv3u2fp_wy6c8a_5E7If_4thdRj5/s200/judge1.jpg" /></a></div>He used it in off duty time but of course the mere presence of it in his system was enough that the company felt compelled to terminate him. Now in Colorado medical marijuana is legally allowed by state law so the employee sued because of this termination. He lost because it was determined that medical marijuana is illegal under federal law and its not enough to be legal under state law. Eventually the case reached the Colorado Supreme Court and they also affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit. Essentially they also ruled that because medical marijuana is illegal under federal law the termination of the employee was proper despite it being legal in Colorado. Now we all know that the federal law is not being enforced in Colorado so does this play any role? Could you assert that the federal law application has been waived or even that the Colorado law has been in effect approved as proper by the feds? It appears in Colorado the answer is that medical pot is legal and illegal and that is the way it is. In terms of workers compensation the potential benefit of medical marijuana is going to complicate matters if it is prescribed to an employee who works for a company that terminates for such use. In Colorado it is now legal and illegal to take any amount of marijuana. That is a tough place to be if it stays this way. For now <a href="http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9809&courtid=2">Coats</a> is the law.Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-69753027454454951332015-05-24T19:55:00.000-06:002015-05-25T18:31:32.155-06:00Memorial Day 2015Once again there is another Memorial Day. With each year it seems to gain importance from my perspective and that of many others. On this day we honor those who have served no matter what the year or by what measure. We truly <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNFmf0saXk4E393mIHJi-4n6DeYqj8KimbDqPE6eXtkBjb_t1m7EEA5U7m0aXvk1DjkQL4vey7coOG4uRRzmuZHEW12DnoD6rcFlx12mdum1AMgxmLeYsqyJ1bIQ5wQx14Lh4V/s1600/flag_1755c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNFmf0saXk4E393mIHJi-4n6DeYqj8KimbDqPE6eXtkBjb_t1m7EEA5U7m0aXvk1DjkQL4vey7coOG4uRRzmuZHEW12DnoD6rcFlx12mdum1AMgxmLeYsqyJ1bIQ5wQx14Lh4V/s200/flag_1755c.jpg" /></a></div>live in a special land and the home of the brave. Without that service and sacrifice this country would not be here as it is. That service saved this country and its people. Our country remains a beacon of freedom in a world that needs that beacon. I went shopping today and saw a veteran seeking donations. Though I did donate I also made it a point to thank him for his service. There are those I cannot thank for they gave all but on this day we remember them with gratitude. In our country all those who served deserve our gratitude. And with it comes our need to commemorate on this special day. Imagine a world if the Nazis and Japan had won World War 2. Imagine a world if we as a nation had not stood up for our belief in freedom and justice. The enormity of their sacrifice cannot be minimized. So to all veterans, living and dead, thank you so much for your service. So we honor you for it and pledge to continue that great experiment in democracy called the USA. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-53866339262073992582015-04-26T22:56:00.000-06:002015-04-26T22:56:54.301-06:00New case on Volunteer Fireman Decided April, 23, 2015Once again a volunteer fireman case reached the Court of Appeals. In the <a href="http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9751&courtid=1">Smith</a> case a volunteer fireman was injured on the way to a fire chiefs meeting. His claim was upheld but contested by Teller County and this led to an appeal. The contest was based on a number of<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8v10s1CHeWzAvvN6vemkFE2faiEIkMGLhIu_bPyDEqvfqL5tEQw9e1D07Ut_dGpokoqijfvvtQ8E8GIAG_J3JIJAcBwkzpUOROml9YqQEYy4kEOFiofVkGLyM6-U37tWkGUto/s1600/judge1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8v10s1CHeWzAvvN6vemkFE2faiEIkMGLhIu_bPyDEqvfqL5tEQw9e1D07Ut_dGpokoqijfvvtQ8E8GIAG_J3JIJAcBwkzpUOROml9YqQEYy4kEOFiofVkGLyM6-U37tWkGUto/s200/judge1.jpg" /></a></div> factors so there were several defenses. Teller County asserted the claimant was not an employee and was not attending a sanctioned activity. They also asserted that there was improper fact finding by the appeals panel and they felt the claim should be barred under the going and coming rule which can exclude a claim if it was coming from or going to work. The court disagreed with Teller County on all of their defenses and affirmed the benefits for the volunteer fireman. I am amazed at how often volunteers are considered important until they file a claim. Then they are not covered and that was the position of Teller County in this appeal. Fortunately the law protected this volunteer and the case is a good read on overcoming the arguments made by an employer. This is one where the good guys win. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-9159269063700220192015-03-25T15:46:00.000-06:002015-03-25T15:46:58.274-06:00Court case Kilpatrick decided March 12, 2015A recent court case was issued on March 12, 2015. In <a href="http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9696&courtid=1">Kilpatrick</a> the claimant sought to reopen a closed case based on new evidence. As part of his efforts claimant sought discovery of the insurers financial records of monetary gifts to any<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWYOFSuOxRP0IAJtmcnghlwHipgiOAm9FDHZCX_7RMIIj28Y3v2Z2OdYQa9QSwhbx5R9yrvRAaOTfWS17vQqXONoajNDLi1MfNfgdJygmgqVlqWf06GJup4q-wc-qTEuD_A_k7/s1600/judge1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWYOFSuOxRP0IAJtmcnghlwHipgiOAm9FDHZCX_7RMIIj28Y3v2Z2OdYQa9QSwhbx5R9yrvRAaOTfWS17vQqXONoajNDLi1MfNfgdJygmgqVlqWf06GJup4q-wc-qTEuD_A_k7/s200/judge1.jpg" /></a></div> Division or hearing office personnel including judges. This was denied as over-burdensome and became part of the appeal by claimant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision yet it concluded that all judges are subject to such disclosures despite the fact that no regulations have been set up on this. It concluded the claimants remedy is with the Division or hearing office not the court in denying claimants assertion of a denial of equal protection of the law. I question this conclusion when the claimant is denied disclosures by administrative inaction. Still unless this is appealed the Kilpatrick case does limit discovery. Every party truly may need discovery to ascertain the issues, the witnesses and the evidence. To me this includes any monetary favors provided to a judge. While bribery is unlikely and most judges are highly ethical I do believe such matters should be fully disclosed. Next, the claimant argued that the doctor rescinded his opinion that the claimant needed no further treatment with a new opinion based on new evidence. However the hearing judge decided that the case should not be reopened. The judge did not accept the doctors change of opinion. The judge believed the change was equivocal and not enough to justify reopening. Certainly a judge can weigh the evidence and absent an abuse of his discretion a judge's determination cannot be set aside. I disagree with this and would assert an outright rescinding should not be considered equivocal. Still you are encouraged to read the case yourself for all the details. There were other concerns but none to permit a favorable decision for the claimant. In this case the claimant lost his appeal unless he can get the Colorado Supreme Court to look at it.Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-48174040579810647272015-03-11T22:47:00.001-06:002015-03-11T22:47:42.077-06:00What Direction for Workers Compensation?For the past several years workers compensation has been fairly stable in Colorado. I guess that is a good thing given that over the past 25 years or so I saw a downward spiral for workers benefits and claims. That is my opinion but I think anyone looking into it would conclude the same. Employers saw their cost of insurance go down which was no<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz7T7971DxkYrzLcLLce8phnvA0t1wcMUmXRz7NH1QKUzGa0xelhej3kM-am5iB1mo9sHKyyk5cYXio3FNISeDAvTbB2LHKgswJ2o3P-xm2Fg3PuWhu2Zpy9sr5NHnMUc9yjkR/s1600/newspaper_3.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz7T7971DxkYrzLcLLce8phnvA0t1wcMUmXRz7NH1QKUzGa0xelhej3kM-am5iB1mo9sHKyyk5cYXio3FNISeDAvTbB2LHKgswJ2o3P-xm2Fg3PuWhu2Zpy9sr5NHnMUc9yjkR/s200/newspaper_3.gif" /></a></div> surprise given the changes in workers compensation. Benefits went down when they were tied into impairment ratings. The battles seemed to be on medical issues and causality issues which did not address disability. As such I recall trying to move cases I had into the total disability area which generated higher settlements. But I always felt bad for the construction worker who loses his trade because of a hand or foot injury. I felt bad for not assessing overall disability when the focus became impairment. Well this problem was not limited to Colorado. Nationally there has often been efforts to restrict claims. In an article which was provided to me the story is extensively set forth. In<a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/the-demolition-of-workers-compensation"> The Demolition of Workers's Comp</a> the author reviews this pattern of attack on workers benefits. It is a good read. I realize that business must control its costs in order to stay viable and employ its workers but I also see the injured worker as a cost of doing business which must be adequately protected. If not the cost is passed on to society and that means all of us. My view is that 100 years ago or so workers comp became important when we all realized that injured workers should not be an expense of society but should be an insurable expense for employers. So hopefully in the future direction for workers compensation we should all keep this in mind. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-52055849556842573222015-03-02T17:55:00.000-07:002015-03-02T17:55:58.862-07:00Another NewsletterRecently the Division of Workers Compensation posted another newsletter. This is for <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AAC_Issue_40.pdf">February 2015</a>. As I have said before these newsletters can contain a lot of interesting <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ5OsDEZZMiEReuCjum_HaOo1cSALBKEy1drHGtlKPm_zMJfpWUSojsLhS_uu7WQaPBOj9t87KYRtpHld41lLNI-BCivID8P3DbPPZL_cPPhTkGryoQN44nzvi49NtFW8kPFYR/s1600/newspaper_3.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ5OsDEZZMiEReuCjum_HaOo1cSALBKEy1drHGtlKPm_zMJfpWUSojsLhS_uu7WQaPBOj9t87KYRtpHld41lLNI-BCivID8P3DbPPZL_cPPhTkGryoQN44nzvi49NtFW8kPFYR/s200/newspaper_3.gif" /></a></div>material especially for attorneys and adjusters. They can also be useful for the injured worker. The <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AAC_Issue_40.pdf">February 2015 newsletter</a> is devoted to medical matters. For example it notes to us that effective April 1, 2015 the injured worker is provided a list of 4 physicians to make a choice for his treatment. There are variations if there are less medical providers within 30 miles of the employers location. Still this is an improvement from years ago when the employer just selected the physician to treat you. That led to criticism of employer favoritism. The new selection process at least affords more choices for the injured worker. Anyone injured at work should carefully review the physician list maintained by the employer. Historically physicians selected by employers come from their insurers who have those they favor. I can assure you that there are physicians who are not dedicated to the injured worker and who try to speedily move along treatment, perhaps to the disadvantage of the claimant. And then there are physicians who are heavily claimant oriented. Attorneys practicing in this area know all about these physicians and those less friendly to claimants. Anyway the newsletter discusses this issue and other medical matters. Those wishing to stay on top of the field should take a look at this <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AAC_Issue_40.pdf">newsletter</a>. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-49635992725434918982015-02-17T15:54:00.000-07:002015-02-17T15:54:28.303-07:00Customer Service If you have a work injury then seek out representation through an attorney. Even where you are being treated fairly it remains my belief that you should obtain an attorney. Historically having an attorney often means obtaining more or better benefits. This area is complex and relying on the adjuster or your employer is simply not in your best interests. In my experience medical care is often better when you have an attorney. Also your compensation benefits are often far higher with an attorney. I've seen cases where benefits appear to be low become much higher with an attorney on your side. In any event there may be cases where you do not have an attorney or cases where it is early on and you need some help or assistance. In such situations perhaps the next best thing is to call the Division's customer service number. While they are not going to represent you they can provide some help and guidance. This can be a very technical field and it's better to contact customer service then go completely on your own. At least that is my opinion although having representation is usually your best bet under just about all circumstances. In any event feel free to contact customer service for helpful information and some assistance. The current phone number for customer service at the Division is 303-318-8700. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-56918923835680351782015-01-26T12:58:00.000-07:002015-01-26T12:58:02.349-07:00All About Claims newsletter of December 2014In December the division posted another <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AAC_Issue_39.pdf">newsletter</a>. Realistically it is not all about claims. That is just the name they gave the newsletter. They publish the newsletter every so often and its purpose is to provide information to claims practitioners. Actually it has some good reading in it for many of<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYS9dwbDVqwxGCLXg8r5vkBf9b-DsRtkAVCEwcSrh1qVsq_OgZ99FtPsWdV_W0Efu6dwy-1MQ1i5nM_3NeGmEU1F8eJG23F5bpLQVsqMrSCumqmM9wjqsymeg6uceDEScLKUiH/s1600/newspaper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYS9dwbDVqwxGCLXg8r5vkBf9b-DsRtkAVCEwcSrh1qVsq_OgZ99FtPsWdV_W0Efu6dwy-1MQ1i5nM_3NeGmEU1F8eJG23F5bpLQVsqMrSCumqmM9wjqsymeg6uceDEScLKUiH/s200/newspaper.jpg" /></a></div> those involved with a claim. The <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AAC_Issue_39.pdf">December 2014 newsletter</a> has an excellent story about prehearing judge Tom McBride. What I like about it is that it humanizes the judge. We can get all wrapped up about a claim and the issues that we forget that those that decide any issues or assist us with settlement are quite human even if very experienced. The <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AAC_Issue_39.pdf">newsletter</a> also touches on other subjects such as the new streamlined electronic settlement approval process and the new reporting requirements of OSHA. you can read about it and other resources in this latest <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AAC_Issue_39.pdf">newsletter</a>. While the topics may not be relevant to any ongoing cases they do explore areas of interest to many in the field. Certainly anyone practicing should take a look at these newsletters as they come out but it also gives all of us another form of communication from the division to those involved with workers compensation in Colorado. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-80009002464234207432014-12-31T22:54:00.001-07:002014-12-31T22:54:34.959-07:00So Long 2014 and Happy New Year 2015! Well in Colorado we are approaching the new year. The year 2014 was "okay" for workers compensation in the sense that nothing horrific happened to reduce rights or benefits for claimants. The Division did post a new website appearance and there were some changes which can be seen in the prior postings on this blog and on the Division website. I am sure that 2015 will produce new cases and changes in rules or guidelines. From my perspective 2014 was fairly tame in Colorado workers compensation. Of course those claimants that had adverse decisions were not happy but nothing dramatic happened to greatly alter the state of affairs in this field. I still have concerns in some areas which I have commented on in the past but at least the field has been reasonably stable. Hopefully in 2015 every claimant will have experienced representation and fair treatment by the system. I WISH ALL CLAIMANTS THE VERY BEST IN THE NEW YEAR!Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-71935813588971899732014-10-22T13:10:00.000-06:002014-10-22T20:09:32.754-06:00Court of Appeals case decided October 9, 2014Just recently decided the <a href="http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9538&courtid=1">Hoff case</a> concerned workers compensation insurance coverage and the assertion by a party of promissory estoppel. In this case the claimant sustained serious work<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib8iD62o5keDEMMsJwWxrBRZXmNwA-pbT_3bAQ18z2cGOKcjQA3KIrCTHOFafnKjmlMkuc9DBwDQ-PqL7IcymRmiwRIxbIDByboRuaWM4t_iGvOKMKPGmjv3fF6VXQU0Ev4OrM/s1600/court.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib8iD62o5keDEMMsJwWxrBRZXmNwA-pbT_3bAQ18z2cGOKcjQA3KIrCTHOFafnKjmlMkuc9DBwDQ-PqL7IcymRmiwRIxbIDByboRuaWM4t_iGvOKMKPGmjv3fF6VXQU0Ev4OrM/s200/court.gif" /></a></div> related injuries. Hoff owned a rental property which had hail damage. She hired a contractor to deal with the insurance and then to repair roof damage. That contractor subcontracted the work to another contractor. The original contractor sought to make sure the roofing contractor had workers comp coverage. This was provided but when the injury happened the workers comp insurer denied coverage due to nonpayment of premium (cancellation of coverage). Hoff asserted they had no notice of the cancellation and relied on the promise of coverage that was initially provided. The hearing judge and ICAP decided that Hoff had no standing to question the cancellation and this appeal followed. The court concluded there was a basis to assert promissory estoppel and Hoff had standing. While this case is a dispute between various contractors it is always good that a claimant brings in enough parties that may have insurance coverage. Lack of coverage can harm the claimants ability to be compensated and have his medical bills paid. In any event read the case for the details.Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-42540212325198520752014-09-30T12:39:00.000-06:002014-09-30T12:39:42.032-06:00The Coats case Oral ArgumentsOn September 30th, 2014 the Colorado Supreme Court held oral arguments on the Coats case. This case involved the termination of an employee after a random drug test for having the presence of marijuana in their body. It was consumed off work and yet the employer had a no tolerance policy. The lower court dismissed the wrongful termination case even though the employee argued he was disabled and it was medically prescribed marijuana. I reported on this in an earlier post. Todays oral arguments were quite interesting even if the discussion seemed to center on technical points. The Denver Post has an article on it which it posted today. You can read the <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26633180/colorado-supreme-court-hears-case-marijuana-use-and">article</a> which also has a link to the oral arguments. By clicking there you can at least for a while see a video of the arguments. A big part of the case is that while Colorado has a law permitting medical use of marijuana the federal law makes it illegal. Mr Coats was asserting he was doing something lawfully permitted off work premises so the termination was wrong by Colorado law. The employer also argued so the outcome is uncertain. In any event a decision can be expected which I will await. In the meantime the case has been interesting to follow. While not a workers comp case this case has an effect in workers compensation cases. Perhaps an injured worker will be prescribed marijuana or perhaps such a worker will be terminated after his work injury if he is tested for marijuana in his system. Employers may seek to terminate and stop temporary benefits in such a case. I guess we shall see what recourse the employee may have. Given also that recreational use of marijuana is permitted now in Colorado what about these no tolerance policies? The court may address this or may simply choose to avoid the issue on some technicality. Time will tell.Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36662321.post-25837000338378802692014-09-06T12:54:00.000-06:002014-09-06T12:54:12.627-06:00The Latest ICAP cases Every month there is an update on the latest ICAP (Industrial Claim Appeals Panel) cases. These are not court appeal cases but rather are the next step to appeal after a hearing decision a party does not agree with. There are many such appeals monthly and from them<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOE4KJ5r8J-TsnslX0P69gDKBmdyriVS2EAr6o2F5aGgkZSibWbeP8xWwPTnCh7etWnXgEJMFsbM9ncxVeJE0Yz-3MmxWwIn88YraNtzxdmeWIux4hwQ02EWEl2fUR6r7nyV2T/s1600/court.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOE4KJ5r8J-TsnslX0P69gDKBmdyriVS2EAr6o2F5aGgkZSibWbeP8xWwPTnCh7etWnXgEJMFsbM9ncxVeJE0Yz-3MmxWwIn88YraNtzxdmeWIux4hwQ02EWEl2fUR6r7nyV2T/s200/court.gif" /></a></div> a selection is made to review. At least this provides us with some of the more interesting cases. Fortunately, these cases are posted at the Division website for anyone to read. The latest such review is shown <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Case_Law_August_21_2014.pdf">here</a>. There are 12 cases shown along with one court case of interest to the reviewer. These cases remind us of what is going on at recent hearings. Some of these cases may even be appealed further. Many may not be appealed. Many of us in this area enjoy getting these cases and the review which comes with them. For a list of several months of these cases you can click <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/cdle/node/26976">here</a>. If you work in this field or even if you just wish to know what is happening in this area it is useful to have this resource. Attorneys even obtain continuing legal education credit for following this monthly program. Richard E. Falcone, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05984052446742595751noreply@blogger.com1