Brown Bag for August 2016

As 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 August case decisions can be read and are available for all interested people. Additionally the

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 here. 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.

Oil Worker case makes the Denver Post

It 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 article indicates it will not be appealed. The case involved a deceased oil worker. It appears he was tank gauging or opening a tank to

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 clicking here. 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!

Unexplained Falls at work...the Rodriguez Supreme Court case

This week the Colorado Supreme Court in Rodriguez affirmed the lower court decision that the claimant had a compensable work injury. I reported the earlier decision by the lower court on August 20, 2012. In this case the claimant had an unexplained fall at work. But then the insurer admitted coverage and only later sought to amend or change that to a denial. The lower court held that the burden to prove it was not caused by work activities was on the insurer and when all they could show was that it was unexplained then they failed to carry their burden. The insurer appealed and this week the Supreme Court issued its decision. What impresses me most about the case is that the court actually had different reasoning then the lower court. It essentially concluded that an unexplained fall at work is compensable in all circumstances. It decided an unexplained fall is not caused by an employment related risk (like a slippery fall or dangerous condition) and it is not a personal or idiopathic risk (caused by personal health issues). It then carved out a new risk, a neutral risk. Quoting from the decision: "Because Rodriguez’s fall would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of her employment -- namely, walking to her office during her work day -- placed her on the stairs where she fell, her injury “arose out of” employment and is compensable." For claimants this is a great decision. We were always worried that falls without any explanation might be tough to attribute to work activities. Now falls shall be compensable unless they are because of personal health factors under this "but for" test. At least that's my view of the case. There was a dissent who said the majority by its decision significantly expands the scope of workers compensation coverage in Colorado. To me I like the decision. The insurance side will always try to attribute injuries to unrelated things if it can. Claimants might then have to try obtain evidence to support them. But insurers have the resources to obtain medical experts and a claimant may not consider that a fair fight. In any event this case is very interesting to read as it discusses several types of injuries. It is an exciting case in the field.

Recent ALJ Decisions

At the local level Colorado posts perhaps all of the decisions by its administrative judges. The decisions for May 2013 are posted here. I went through these decisions and you can too. What I noticed is that many of them concern either compensability (coverage) or medical issues. Claimants often lost at these hearings. My view is that the claimant in such matters will often need a medical expert or two to help with his or her case. Insurers have ready access to known doctors who tend to support the insurer side of things. In a tough case my experience has been that Respondents will spend thousands to win. Winning means the claimant loses...either he loses it all or he loses on an issue that is quite important like his need for surgery. These experts are very good at justifying their position and at knocking down the medical opinions of others more supportive of the claimant. Did you get hurt at work? Nah it was preexisting. Or it could not have happened with the claimants work activities. Need surgery...well not really. The other sides medical experts are clever and often sway the judge. A claimant may not have the ability to hire his own experts to fight back. If left to the existing medical reports issued by the treating doctors who are often selected by the insurer a claimant may not have a chance. My point is that to have a fair fight a claimant may need expert help. The system does not pay for that or even have a fund to assist claimants. Over the years I've seen this problem increase. In any event reading the decisions makes you aware of the problem. It can also make you aware of the doctors involved in workers compensation cases from treating doctors to experts. For insight I'd encourage you to read the cases. Common sense may tell you that work activities caused or aggravated your condition but the insurer may have evidence that threatens your case. It can come in the form of a doctor or two who are hired to dispute your claim. So be ready because at a hearing you should expect significant opposition.

Firefighter Court of Appeals Case Zukowski

On July 3, 2013 the Colorado Court of Appeals issued a decision I call Zukowski. It is a case that concerns the statutory presumption that certain diseases arise from firefighting duties. The statute shifts the burden to Respondents to overcome the presumption or else the disease will be considered covered under workers compensation. The problem for firefighters is that they do not keep track of all their exposures to toxic chemicals or factors that can cause job related diseases. To improve that situation the statute was passed. However since then there have been efforts to defend against such a presumption. This blog has previously noted this (see the Littleton case entry in this blog for November 3, 2012). In the Zukowski case the firefighter had a melanoma which led to a claim. Respondents lost the hearing and the appeal to the next level but appealed further and the court reversed the prior rulings. In other words the firefighter lost the case barring further appeal. At the hearing the Respondents produced evidence through two physicians. Essentially they concluded that there were greater risk factors for the development of the melanoma from non work factors. The court ruled that the evidence was enough to overcome the statutory presumption and that the hearing judge interpreted the statute too heavily against the Respondents. It was error to require that the statutory presumption can only be overcome by proving the disease was caused by something else unrelated to the job. The court viewed such a standard as akin to saying strict liability applies against the Respondents. My concern is that the evidence was really indicating that non work factors were the greater risk factors then the job exposure to the development of the melanoma. I would say that this defense could well impair the statute's intent. Respondents can use this approach forcing the firefighter to again try to show his melanoma came from work and that could be difficult. My concern is that risk factors or the increased risk do not show what caused the disease and the statute sought to indicate it would presume the cause came from work activities and exposures. In any event the case is required reading in any firefighter case.

The Meza case on 18 month DIME opinions

On May 9, 2013 the Colorado Court of Appeals issued the Meza case. The case has been in the system for years. Originally the claimant hurt his right foot in an admitted on the job injury. He was treated an eventually released back to work without restrictions or impairment. Four years later after ongoing pain the claim was reopened and he received additional treatment. Because the claimant was still being treated by the authorized physician and 18 months had gone by the employer sought a DIME (division sponsored independent medical examination). This is permitted by statute. This 18 month DIME found the claimant to be at MMI (maximum medical improvement) and rated his permanent impairment at 20 per cent (part for the spine and part for CRPS a nerve disease). All related to the original injury. Respondents filed a Final Admission and the claimant argued the 18 month DIME only can address MMI so he needed to be returned to his authorized physician for a rating. A judge agreed and his authorized doctor rated him at 27 per cent impaired. Respondents then sought a regular DIME which resulted in a rating of 4 per cent. The second DIME removed from the rating that portion for the CRPS and spine because it was unrelated to the work injury. Read the case for more details on the history. In any event the claimant at a hearing sought to overcome the second DIME and also assert that the 18 month DIME opinion was binding on the second DIME in addressing that the spine and CRPS was causally related to the work injury. The claimant lost and eventually the case got to the Court of Appeals. There the claimant lost again. This case really discusses an 18 month DIME and what effect it has on a later DIME. The court determined the 18 month DIME only can address MMI. Even causality can be addressed in a rating by a regular DIME. It is clear the court limited an 18 month DIME to a narrow issue so a later DIME is not bound by the rating or causal opinion of an 18 month DIME. I had thought that causality is part of every DIME opinion but it appears the court made a distinction between an 18 month DIME and a regular DIME. UPDATE: See my blog post for June 10, 2013 where statutory changes were made altering future use of this case as precedent.

Colorado case on Firefighters and cancer

This week the Court of Appeals issued a decision in the Littleton case. In this case a Littleton firefighter developed brain cancer. He filed a claim in workers compensation which was contested. The firefighter relied on a recent

Colorado statute which provides for a statutory presumption that certain cancers came from on the job exposures for firefighters. The Respondents fought hard and presented several witnesses to assert that his cancer was not from firefighting. The judge at the hearing decided against the claimant firefighter who then appealed. At next level of appeal it was decided in the firefighters favor so the Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. This court decision issued this week also determined in favor of the firefighter. The court went about analyzing the statute and concluding the efforts to provide evidence the cancer did not come from firefighting were not enough to overcome the statutory presumption the cancer was work related. It seemed the medical evidence the Respondents presented was really attacking the statute and in order to overcome that presumption you must present evidence as to where the cancer came from other than work activities. At least that is my view but read the case. In that respect the Respondent burden is very high. If fire fighters had to prove their exposure to toxic things caused a cancer it would be quite difficult. Fire fighters do not monitor all the chemicals they are exposed to or the level of that exposure. The other side can often come up with medical experts to provide opinions such exposures are not likely to cause cancer. So when the firefighter can rely on the statute he has a big edge. UPDATE: This case is now at the Colorado Supreme Court as of October 2013. Look for its decision in 2014.

Rodriguez Court of Appeals case on falls

Just a few days ago the Colorado Court of Appeals decided the Rodriguez workers comp case. In this case the claimant

was injured in a fall descending the stairs to her office. The employer initially admitted liability for disability but then sought to withdraw its admission of liability arguing the injuries did not arise out of the employment. A CT scan found unruptured brain aneurysms but it was determined the fall did not come from the aneurysms but was unexplained. The judge found the claim to be not compensable because the fall was unexplained. The hearing judge recognized that the employer bore the burden in proving non-compensability and it did so when the fall was determined to be unexplained. Claimant appealed and it was affirmed by the panel leading to the Court of Appeals decision when the claimant appealed again to a higher court. The court said the burden being on the employer the fact it was unexplained was a failure of proof. Essentially the burden of proof was on the employer since they had admitted liability and that burden requires more then saying the fall was unexplained. All claimants should be aware that unexplained falls are usually not compensable because normally the burden is on the claimant to show the injury was work related. However here the employer had the burden when it admitted liability. Clearly it appears the court is saying the burden you have is a real one and there must be evidence to carry that burden. A lack of explanation is not good enough. To me falling on stairs is usually work related but it is important to have an explanation of what happened. You might return to the scene of any fall if you are worried. Perhaps the traction is a problem or the angle or the step itself may be a problem. Fortunately in this case the claimant was lucky not to have it contested where the burden would be hers to prove. In many cases the other side disputes or contests the claim. If at all possible a claimant should have an attorney to handle such contested claims because they are often tough cases to win. UPDATE: This case went to the Colorado Supreme Court and while affirming the decision the court went further so see my post of February 4, 2014.

Administrative Law Judge Orders for September 2011

I have indicated in the past that the Office of Administrative Courts will post just about all the orders issued in the state of Colorado following hearings in workers compensation cases. In September they posted the orders and it covers some 470 pages. I skimmed through all of them and many are quite interesting reads. A great many of them involve medical legal issues so they have opinions by numerous doctors. In one early case I counted 8 doctors. Often such cases involve causality questions pertaining to whether or not a claim is work related or questions regarding treatment. I should remind claimants to discuss all your complaints at every visit with the doctor. In my experience some of the doctors do not document as we would expect them to do. As such you can provide the doctor with your history in writing if need be. By history I mean a dated statement of your current problems which you bring to your doctor each visit. Always make a copy for your records. This can prevent any misunderstandings later on. In at least one of these cases it appears the claimant asserted he was telling and telling the doctor at every visit something which never was noted by the doctor. Of course the decision went against the claimant on that point. I have had clients take a written history into their doctor every time just to keep all the details accurate. A failure to complain can be assumed to mean an absence of pain or limitation. Anyway these cases tell us what sorts of issues are going to hearing in Colorado.

Colorado workers comp insurance rates to go up

The Denver Post is reporting that businesses can expect a rate increase on their workers compensation insurance coverage. This after a few years of declines. Why? The number of claims is not going up. The explanation appears to be in the continuous and unrelenting increase in medical costs. Here is the Colorado statement on all this. This rise in medical costs when the economy is not inflating remains ominous for all of us. The failure of society to address this is rather sad. We all talk about it but it takes a concerted effort and in our politically charged country we are less interested in problem solving and more in ideology. Wouldn't it be nice if they set up a task force to address such costs in a sensible way? I mean an across the board analytical review. If medications are a big factor find ways to lower that expense. If we need more nurses or practitioners find ways to increase the numbers with educational incentives. If caution leads to the running of multiple and usually unneeded tests find ways to prioritize those tests rather then run all of them at a time. If malpractice rates are too high find ways to make providers accountable without increasing those rates. I mean weed out the bad apples especially in workers compensation. Simplify the paperwork too! While I do like the medical treatment guidelines I saw recently what appears to be making it more complicated to obtain prior authorization. In workers compensation there are many disputes in what I see as primarily medical legal issues. When we go to a hearing and it seems to be a legal issue on compensability in reality many such cases involve medical causality. So some of these rising costs involve insurers hiring experts to question causality and treatment. As an example an attorney related to me that he had obtained a DIME opinion that the claimant is not at MMI. In the past this just led to more treatment and a reassessment. Overcoming a DIME historically has not been easy but the pattern is now to question everything. There are doctors out there that will nearly always assert an injury is not work related or that the DIME doctor made a mistake. A DIME would cost $675 but they spend $5000 or more fighting it. The point is not all the rising costs in workers compensation are based on purely medical matters. Some come from the insurer disputing matters. It also drags out the proceedings which I do not really see as helping the claimant needing treatment and it is costly. In any event businesses can expect higher workers comp premiums next year.

Court Allows TTD After MMI in Loofbourrow Case

In Loofbourrow the Colorado Court of Appeals dealt with a case where the claimant had been placed at MMI (maximum medical improvement)by the authorized medical physician at the time. He returned to work and then worsened. At that point he requested medical treatment and the situation deteriorated as the Respondents denied the claim and did not provide treatment. Even the AWW (average weekly wage) was disputed. At the hearing the judge ruled in favor of the claimant on the issues. He was granted TTD (temporary total disability) benefits even though he had been previously placed at MMI and never contested that. The claim was determined to be compensable and claimant had the right to pick his doctor given the lack of medical treatment. He even won on the AWW issue which seemed to involve reduced hours after the original injury but the judge provided a higher figure. The other side appealed and ICAP (Industrial Claim Appeals Panel) overturned the award of TTD which led to the court decision just issued this week. The court affirmed the judge and reversed ICAP. The Respondents asserted that after being placed at MMI which was never disputed the claimant could not receive TTD. That legal position is a correct one when a claimant has been receiving TTD and reaches MMI. However in this case the court reasoned that after MMI he worsened so the claim remained open to further review. He did not need to seek to reopen and his right to challenge the earlier MMI could not happen until after a FAL (Final Admission of Liability) was filed which had yet to happen. Can you imagine the position this claimant was in? He is hurt at work but seemingly quickly recovers. But his hours are reduced and when he worsens the Respondents decide to fight everything. It is appealed and then appealed again to the court. How long did this person go without benefits as the administrative process went through all the appeals? It appears the last work was in August 2009 so while the court ruled in the claimants favor it took quite a while to obtain benefits and that is assuming there will not be a further appeal. UPDATE: The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed this decision on January 27, 2014.

Totally disabled 74 year old denied permanent total benefits

In a recent ICAP case the claimant Lane was 74 years old and admittedly totally disabled. However he was denied permanent total disability benefits after a hearing and this was affirmed by ICAP. The claimant was injured in September 2008 and eventually received an impairment of 13% of an upper extremity which equaled a 8% whole person rating. There was some dispute on his restrictions but both vocational experts provided credible opinions the man was not likely employable. The claimant did have multiple non-work related conditions such as hip pain, hearing loss, balance problems and an abdominal aortic aneurysm. So what happened? The ALJ determined the claimant had failed to show that the industrial injury was a significant causative factor in his inability to earn wages. In the case there was evidence presented that the claimant had no restrictions from his work injury and also evidence he had restrictions. The claimant was working for the employer after maximum medical improvement (MMI see glossary) but was let go for an alleged failure to do something and this was given weight by the hearing judge. So being no longer employable at the conclusion of a workers compensation case does not mean permanent total benefits are awarded. The key is whether the work injury is a significant causative factor. In this case the medical evidence of post injury restrictions was not present so claimants should always focus on obtaining medical restrictions and establishing the work injury was a significant factor in being unemployable. Often with older workers they do have many health problems and actually those problems plus a significant work injury can make for a good case of permanent total disability but it is not an automatic award as the Lane case points out.

Brown Bagging It on ICAP cases

Once a month an administrative law judge has a brown bag lunch where he reviews cases of interest to those in the Colorado workers comp field. These cases are not readily available to the public although most attorneys in the field have access to the decisions. The Industrial Claim Appeals Office handles a great many appeals from hearings held at the local level. Many such cases never get appealed further and the next stage is to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Judge Eley is well liked and respected by most attorneys in this field and his free Brown Bag Lunch Seminar is well attended. Even if you cannot make it he emails you the materials and an audio of his presentation. Today is the January lunch and from the materials I have already received I note two cases that are exceptionally interesting to me and perhaps to most readers. The first can be called the Wheeler case. The claimant was admittedly permanently and totally disabled and thus entitled to PTD benefits. The issue was how to compute those benefits where they are paid out every two weeks perhaps for life. So the case involved AWW which is average weekly wage. The claimant when hurt at work was earning a very low figure if you look at her actual average wage. Respondents said it was under $75 a week. However vocational evidence was provided which helped show that the rate would be much higher then her actual wage at the time of the accident. While this must all relate to the date of the injury a Judge does have discretion to depart from your actual wage and consider loss of earning capacity. Here the difference was enormous though any calculations still are based upon the law as of the injury date. The judge applied the law as of the date of maximum improvement which was a mistake. The claimant still won big here.
The second case involved a fall at work. Caselaw tells us that not all falls at work are really work injuries entitled to benefits. The claimant in Landes was determined to have a work related tramatic brain injury injury which arose from work activities despite the fact he had amnesia and remembered nothing about the fall. Often Respondents will assert it is the claimants burden to prove his case and falls can come for many reasons. No change in the law from this ICAP decision favorable to the claimant so it is up to the hearing judge to decide on the evidence presented. There was a dissent that essentially said the evidence was speculative either way making the fall unexplained and not compensable.

High Heels = Work Injury and Discrimination Claim

This case being reported by the American Lawyer and at Law.com is not a Colorado workers comp case. But what makes it interesting is the allegation that females at a law firm were required to wear high heels which then led to a workplace injury. Then the allegation is that no accomodation was made and there was reinjury and this went on until the lady lost her job. So the case goes beyond the routine work injury to result in an additional claim for discrimination. It is unusual enough that it seemed worthy to post here. High heels...work injury...seems like a blast from the past. In many Colorado law firms the dress is casual but even when it is not I am unaware of any required dress code that says you must wear high heels.

Court of Appeals decides the Eller case today

This is a case where the claimant lost on compensability (coverage) after a hearing. She appealed but lost at the Court of Appeals level. Eller asserted that, while there was no admission of liability, the Respondents provided medical care and the authorized treating provider determined she was at MMI(maximum medical improvement) and also rated her with an impairment. She then said that this determination was never attacked by the Respondents so by statute (section 8-42-107.2(2)(b), C.R.S. 2008) they are bound by it. Her view was that it was required by statute that Respondents seek a DIME(Division Independent Medical Evaluation)so because they did not the doctors opinion was binding even on the Administrative Law Judge. This even should have included compensability or causality. The Court disagreed and affirmed the loss by claimant. Respondents contested the claim so they had a right to contest the question of compensability at the hearing which is a threshold issue not a medical opinion. Here the lower judge decided the claimant was not very credible and the specific injury was not caused at work. The claimant then argued that the way the case was handled deprived him of a right to seek a DIME which could have led to a presumption the DIME opinion addressed causality. This was shot down. The one point that is unclear to me is whether the authorized doctor addressed the mechanism of injury such that it could be said to be a binding finding or determination as noted in the statute. The Court said the statute should mean that the doctor addressing MMI or impairment is not a finding on the question whether the injury was caused at work. But even if you say the doctor cannot address whether it happened at work he may have addressed the way the claimant was injured. Here the impairment perhaps was attributed to falling out of a chair at work by her doctor who provided the rating. Seems to me that Respondents medical witness was not an eyewitness. Yet Respondent's doctor concluded the claimant's injury was not caused by falling out of a chair. Not sure why this opinion was allowed over the authorized doctor but the facts are not fully set forth on that point. However the case says that when Respondents contest your claim they can take it to a hearing and win even if the authorized doctor is on your side. The case is an interesting read so for more complete details and the Court's reasoning click here.

Burden of Proof on modification

I previously posted on some statutory changes but overlooked one which on a second look seems pretty significant. This is stated effective for claims filed on or after August 5, 2009. SB 09-168 amends Colorado Revised Statutes 8-43-201 on hearings to say that the party seeking to modify an admission or order has the burden of proof when it wants to modify it. The best example of this is that under current law the Respondents can come in at a hearing and assert compensability (that is question coverage even after they admitted the claim). Common sense says fine but it should be their burden to prove it after they admitted the original injury was on the job. Well under the current law it was always the claimants burden when the other side raised this issue. Having the burden could mean that in a close call situation the claimant months later could lose his entire case. You can bet Respondents knew this and used it to their advantage at times. Now the law is that it becomes a Respondent burden. A Judge can now be permitted to question the other side's reasons so claimants have a bit more law on their side now. Click here to see the law changes.

Quasi-course of employment case: Kelly

Decided on March 5, 2009, the Kelly case addressed the legal issue of quasi-course of employment. The Colorado Court of Appeals decided that a claimant returning to Colorado for re-scheduled surgery (for his work injury) who was then injured in Elko Nevada in an auto accident cannot make it part of his workers comp claim. The court decided that injuries while traveling to and from a medical appointment can be covered through workers comp but in the case on appeal it was too much of a deviation. The claimant was on vacation and was told his medical appointment for surgery could be reset so he decided to travel back from Reno and was hurt during the travel. While it was travel for treatment for his work injury it was too much a deviation from the typical home to medical office to say the accident should be covered. Each case should be reviewed on its facts because it now seems a question of how much of a deviation to throw out coverage. While the case makes sense it may lead to more litigation as it's not clear what is a "substantial deviation" but it does seem to be a rule of reason case. That is, if it is unreasonable then it won't be covered.

The Ortega case or 20 days means 20 days!

Just decided by the Colorado Court of Appeals on Feb. 19, 2009 the Ortega case involved a request for a continuance made during a hearing. It seems the Claimant received a medical report less then 20 days before the hearing and wanted to submit it although the law (Colorado statute 8-43-210) says it must be submitted to the other side no later the 20 days before the hearing. The report was from a family doctor who said the injury was related to work activities when this was hotly disputed. The other side also had late medical reports. They also had a medical witness at the hearing. The judge denied all the late reports. He then denied the request of the Claimant for a continuance. The hearing led to a decision denying benefits to the Claimant. The Claimant appealed and finally the case went to the Court of Appeals. Essentially the court said that 20 days is the law and there was no reason to say the local Judge committed any legal error which would justify reversing the decision. I will say the Claimant had a chance to submit his late report if the other side's reports also came in but that is really not well detailed. Apparently the Claimant's lawyer felt he had a solid reason to be excused from the 20 day law since the doctor did not even get it out timely. I cannot see what the reason was for the other side to be late. In any event a continuance was denied in part because the other side had a medical witness they had to pay. The court commented on the law but here is what is strange to me...the law does permit the Judge to order the case be continued but lets the Judge go forward with part of the hearing. Strict compliance with the law is not always necessary. It is hard to second guess the local Judge's decision but on the facts presented I question the decision to deny a continuance. The Court also seemed to suggest that the Claimant's lawyer should have acted sooner since there was an earlier report by the same doctor on the issue. I am just not sure why, in a search for the truth, when the medical report was really late that we say it's the lawyer's problem to anticipate the doctor sending a late report. Given part of the hearing could have gone forward and also continued for more evidence why insist on the 20 day law? Anyway read the Ortega case here. Hearings are administrative proceedings and many times they start one day and finish a month later.

September 11th Responders still hurting

Here is a link to a recent article that tells us that many who responded with courage and dedication have not been compensated for efforts once they developed health problems. Many such problems seem related to their work and rescue activities at the 9-11 site in NYC. I expect it is relatively simple to defend claims made because the medical evidence can be subject to different interpretations. We all assume that injuries and disabilities will be taken care of but many cases are contested. The contest is often because insurers can question the cause of the injury or disability. Yet it is a shame when we see this happen to those who were involved with 9-11 efforts at the site of an American Tragedy. Click here for the article.

9/11 Cop's death...is he a hero or not?

While not a Colorado matter the recent controversy over the death of a NYC detective who spent over 400 hours at the 9/11 site and died from lung problems points out that injuries or diseases from work exposure may not be simple matters. In this case one side says death came from the 9/11 exposure to dust, fibers etc., and another side says the death was inflicted by injecting ground up drugs which then went to the lungs and killed him. This problem is one where medical experts disagree and that is trouble. It is far more common then most people realize. One very common example is carpal tunnel syndrome or cumulative trauma disorder where the injured worker claims work activities caused hand, arm or wrist pain and the other side says not so. The claimant has to prove it likely came from work or they lose. Well, it takes a courageous authorized treating doctor to go against a medical expert hired by the insurer to question the work relatedness of the injury. Often the doctor is designated by the insurer/employer so they may have to balance between the patient and the insurance (just my opinion dear reader but I believe it is so). Anyway back to the cop story. If the officer worked hundreds of hours at ground zero and developed lung problems and he was then prescribed numerous drugs which may have gone to his lungs isn't it still work related? Do we blame the hero for this? If he was so stressed he also went the wrong way do we say it's all on him? Doesn't it all really flow from his work at ground zero? In this case I believe that he was being taken care of so he likely died from his job activities or treatment for his occupational disease but it's not my call. To me he's absolutely a hero. Read about the dispute here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-25-9-11-death_N.htm