Tag Archives: ERISA

Claiming workers’ comp, when short-term disability has paid for time off because of a work injury

Posted on by

A few days ago I wrote “Five reasons why office workers don’t file workers’ comp, claims for hand and wrist claims.” One of those reasons is that I think many employees use private health insurance and short-term disability to pay the cost of work injuries rather than workers’ compensation.

To understand why this hurts workers, it helps to understand the difference between workers’ compensation, short-ter, disability and private health insurance.

The difference between workers’ compensation, short-term disability and private health insurance.

With a few small exceptions, workers’ compensation is mandatory for all employers in Nebraska. Workers’ compensation includes payment for wage loss, permanent disability and medical benefits that are standard for all employers. Employers bear the cost of workers’ compensation. Finally, employees, at least in Nebraska, pay nothing for medical care under workers’ compensation. But workers’ compensation only covers expenses related to work injuries.

In contrast, private disability insurance is not required. Private disability covers income loss for occupational as well as non-occupational conditions. While health insurance coverage is mandatory for larger employers, there is a lot of variation among insurance plans. More importantly, employees generally have to foot some of the cost of private disability and health insurance coverage. Finally, under private health insurance, an employee has out of pocket expenses in the forms of co-pays and deductibles.

The seeming advantage of putting an injury on private insurance and short-term disability is convenience. Additionally, short-term disability policies sometimes pay 80 percent of lost income while workers’ compensation insurance only pays 2/3rds. Additionally, workers’ compensation benefits can undercompensate some highly paid employees.

But on closer examination, workers’ compensation is a better deal most of the time. First of all, workers’ compensation benefits are generally not taxed while short-term disability benefits are more likely to be taxed. Under workers’ compensation an employee doesn’t have to pay out of pocket for medical expenses. Out of pocket expenses for even a simple procedure covered by insurance can range into the thousands of dollars.

Workers’ compensation pays for permanent disability for hand and wrist injuries on an impairment basis for single member claims. This means the employee gets paid something if they have damage to their body, even if they can return back to their job full duty. Long-term disability policies tend not to pay out unless an employee is unable to work.

Claiming workers’ compensation after short-term disability and health insurance pay for the costs of surgery – This is permissible and is often a smart financial move for an injured worker, but attorney involvement is usually needed. In cases where an employer is forced to pay medical bills through workers’ compensation and that the client and their health insurer originally paid, the client and health insurer get reimbursed by the doctor. Out of pocket expenses are eliminated and can be paid to the employee by the provider.

In some such cases employees can get a refund from their private health insurer through the so-called the so-called common fund doctrine if the health insurer gets paid back from a workers’ compensation claim.

Employees pursuing a workers’ compensation claim when short-term disability paid can also end up ahead financially. An employee can be paid permanent disability benefits for a wrist or hand injury even if the employee is able to return back to work and has little if any functional restrictions.

But health insurers and disability insurers will attempt to claim repayment or subrogation rights under a federal law known as Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) which regulates some disability and insurance plans. ERISA is a powerful tool for insurers, but it doesn’t apply to a broad class of employers including church-affiliated employers and state and local governments.

It’s important than an attorney can get a look at the insurance plan to determine if ERISA even applies. Employees have some leverage in the way of civil fines against an insurer or employer if the plan administrator fails to provide the plan. ERISA laws generally pre-empt or overrule state laws, but since workers’ compensation laws generally regulate the business of insurance, there is an argument that ERISA may not preempt those laws. Additionally, Nebraska has a law against assignment of benefits which could help limit or eliminate repayment rights. So, in short. a lawyer has ways to push back against a private disability insurer and or health insurer claiming an ERISA lien when resolving a workers’ compensation case.

Workers’ compensation cases where private health insurance and or private disability have paid are also, for lack of a better word, messy. Part of that messiness usually involves some dispute over whether an injury was work-related. In those cases, an attorney can help negotiate unpaid medicals bills and any other repayment rights from a private disability or health insurer. Again, the result of this work is that an injured worker emerges from a work injury in better financial condition than they would have without a lawyer.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Nebraska, Workers' Compensation and tagged , , , , .

More Takeaways from the Demise of the Oklahoma Option in Workers’ Compensation

Posted on by

oklahoma-ruling-vasquez-v-dillardsThe Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the so-called “Oklahoma Option” in Vasquez v. Dillard’s was one of the biggest events in the world of workers’ compensation. Vasquez represents a growing trend by advocates for injured workers recognizing that workers’ compensation is a matter of constitutional law. But the Vasquez decision is important for other reasons.

Opt-Out is Still Viable

Though some commentators declared the defeat of the Oklahoma option was the death of opt-out, many justices on the Oklahoma Supreme Court who overturned the Oklahoma option would disagree.

A concurring opinion contrasted the Oklahoma opt-out system with the Texas opt-out system. In Texas, employers are not required to have or “subscribe” to workers’ compensation. But if Texas employers do not subscribe to workers’ compensation, injured Texas employees can sue their employer in tort with all affirmative defenses stripped away. This encourages employers to carry workers’ compensation insurance. Nebraska has a similar law for agricultural employers who are exempt from having to carry workers’ compensation.

Oklahoma’s “opt-out” created separate workers’ compensation systems: the state system under the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA) or the private systems under the Oklahoma Employee Injury Benefit Act (OEIBA), where employees were eligible for the same benefits but where employers could draft their own rules for eligibility. Regardless of whether an employee was covered under the AWCA or the OEIBA, employers still had to be covered under one system or another, and employees could not sue their employer in tort for work injuries. What doomed the Oklahoma option was the fact that unfair procedures under the OEIBA created separate but unequal workers’ compensation systems.

The contrast between the now defunct Oklahoma option and the still-viable Texas opt-out system was reinforced when the Vasquez court rejected Dillard’s argument that Vasquez’s claim was pre-empted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) law. Under the Oklahoma option, plans under the OEIBA were to be governed by the ERISA law. However, since OEIBA served as workers’ compensation and ERISA plans that serve as workers’ compensation plans do not pre-empt state workers’ compensation laws, the OEIBA was not pre-empted by federal law. In contrast, state law claims against employers on disability insurance plans who are “nonsubscribers” in Texas are pre-empted by ERISA.

Few, If Any States, Are Going to Implement the Oklahoma Option

The Oklahoma option was struck down on equal-protection grounds based on the Oklahoma state constitution. Most other states have similar provisions in their state constitutions. In Nebraska, that provision is found at Article III, Section 18 of our state constitution. This provision concerns itself with disparate treatment in much the same manner as does the language of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits a state from making or enforcing any law that denies any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.” Distinctive Printing & Packaging Co. v. Cox, 232 Neb. 846, 443 N.W.2d 566 (1989). Even in a state without an equal protection clause in the state constitution, separate but unequal workers’ compensation systems could be likely be struck down on equal-protection grounds under the U.S. Constitution.

Injured Workers Are a Protected Class

Injured workers are sometimes subject to retaliation for bringing workers’ compensation claims. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court distinguished “discrimination” or “protected status” from “retaliation” or “protected activity” cases under Title VII and held that there was a higher burden of proof for employees bringing a retaliation case than for an employee bringing a discrimination case. However, if injured workers are thought of as a protected class, then discrimination in the form of termination should be thought of as a form of discrimination, and those claims should be subject to a more relaxed burden of proof than required in the Nassar case.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Courts, Government, Workers' Compensation, Workers' Compensation Reform and tagged , , , , , , .