Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Lawyers Blog

It is with great pride that the attorneys at Michael J. O'Connor & Associates, LLC announce that Attorney David A. Miller has been selected as a Pennsylvania Rising Star in the field of personal injury.

Pennsylvania Rising Stars, as published in the June 2010 edition of the Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Super Lawyers magazines, represent the top 2.5% of attorneys across the state. To be eligible for selection as a Rising Star, an attorney must be age 40 or younger, or in practice for 10 years or less.

Rising Stars recognize the top up-and-coming attorneys in the state. The Pennsylvania Rising Stars for 2010 were selected from the results of an extensive nomination and polling process conducted by Law & Politics and published in the June 2010 issue of Philadelphia magazine and in Pennsylvania Super Lawyers - Rising Stars Edition. This is Miller's second year to make the Rising Stars list.

Continue reading "Attorney David A. Miller at Michael J. O'Connor & Associates Included in the 2010 Pennsylvania Rising Stars List" »

For the seventh year in a row, Michael J. O'Connor, founder of Michael J. O'Connor & Associates, was selected and named as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer in the field of workers' compensation law as published in the June 2010 edition of Philadelphia Magazine as well as the recent edition of Super Lawyers magazine.

In addition to Mr. O'Connor, Attorney Paul J. Duffalo was named to the list this year.

Attorneys named Super Lawyers are considered to be the top five percent of attorneys in each state, as chosen by their peers and through the independent research of Law & Politics. O'Connor was named a Super Lawyer in 2004 and each year following, making this his seventh year in a row to top the list of workers' compensation attorneys in Pennsylvania. This is Duffalo's third year to make the list.

To be named a Super Lawyer, an attorney must first go through a rigorous three-step process that begins with a nomination by his/her peers. The nominations occur on ballots that go out to all lawyers throughout the state who have been in practice for at least five years. These nominations are to be based on personal observation rather than solely on reputation.

O'Connor's seventh consecutive Super Lawyer designation makes evident his continued determination to uphold an outstanding level of legal representation. Duffalo has been recognized for his success and hard work for the third year in a row, and will undoubtedly continue to be named to the list in the coming years. His dedication to injured workers is recognized amongst his peers and demonstrated in his professional achievements.

Continue reading "Two Attorneys at Michael J. O'Connor & Associates Top the 2010 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers List" »

If a worker is injured on the job, he or she may consider using a medical leave instead of filing a workers' compensation claim. But without knowing the difference between family medical leave and filing for workers' comp, the injured employee could do more damage to themselves in the long run financially.

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) entitles an eligible employee up to a total of 12 weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period because of a serious health condition. An employee may elect, or the employer may require, the employee to substitute accrued paid vacation, personal leave, or sick leave during this period of time. When the employee returns to work, the employer must return the worker to his former position or an equivalent position, with equivalent employee benefits. Usually, when an employee takes FMLA leave, he or she does not get paid. The employee may elect to use vacation pay, sick pay, or paid time off if the employee has earned these benefits.

If an injured worker takes Family Medical Leave, but finds that he or she cannot return to work after the 12 weeks expire, generally the employer is not obligated to rehire the worker at a later date. In these types of cases, the employer is not required to hold the job open indefinitely.

Continue reading "Workers' Compensation and Medical Leave" »

The case of a Pennsylvania woman whose workers' compensation claim petition was reversed is an important reminder of how critical it is to report your work injury immediately to your employer.

A worker claimed that after cleaning 42 tanning beds in one day, she experienced numbness in her right arm and several fingers, and pain in her shoulder. She was awarded temporary total disability benefits after alleging that she suffered a disc herniation with radiculopathy. However, the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Appeal Board reversed the petition, finding that the claimant failed to provide timely notice of her work injury to her employer.

The injury took place on May 25, and the employee told her employer on May 31 that she had pain and numbness going down her arms. However, she did not specifically relate these problems to her work until she sent a letter to her employer on Oct. 11. Since this date was more than 120 days from the date of the work injury, the board concluded that the claimant failed to provide notice in a timely manner and she was denied compensation.

Continue reading "The Importance of Notifying Your Employer of Your Injury" »

We read an interesting article this week on Pittsburgh's Post-Gazette.com on the misclassification of employees.

According to the article, the state's Unemployment Compensation fund is being underfunded because about 9 percent of the state's workforce are misclassified as independent contractors. By categorizing a worker as an independent contractor, a company save money because it does not need to pay for benefits for the employee including workers' compensation and unemployment insurance.

But determining whether or not a worker fits the description of company employee can be tricky. In addition, many workers are just happy to have a job and may not want to cause a stir given the current recession and high unemployment rates. It might not become an issue for the worker until he or she is hurt on the job. To read the full article, click on this link.

Continue reading "Misclassification of Employees Continues to Be an Issue in Pennsylvania" »

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the miners who were killed in the tragic accident in West Virginia. As residents of the coal region here in Schuylkill County, we are all too familiar with the risks and dangers associated with working in the mines.

On the heels of this accident, we recently saw an article on the TimesLeader.com about a local coal industry businessman who violated workers' compensation insurance and income tax laws.

According to the article, Al Roman, owner of the Huber Breaker and No. 1 Contracting, was sentenced on six counts of workers' compensation insurance payment and one count each of willfully evading earned-income tax and failure to make required payments.

The Northeastern Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Task Force said Roman and No. 1 Contracting failed to obtain and maintain workers' compensation insurance coverage from July 2006 until March 2008. This was brought to light when an employee filed a workers' comp claim after injuring himself on the job in 2006.

The investigation also determined that over $109,000 was withheld from the pay of employees for Act 511 taxes beginning in January 2004, but never handed over to tax authorities.

Roman received five years probation and ordered to pay back more than $170,000.

We read an interesting blog this week on ThePopTort.com. It brings to light the effect that judicial elections can have on injured workers, using the example of a law that was recently passed in Ohio. We recommend that you click on the link below to read the full article:

http://www.thepoptort.com/2010/03/judicial-elections-have-consequences.html

The website RiskandInsurance.com recently discussed a ruling by the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that upheld the denial of a worker's petition for benefits because he did not establish an employer-employee relationship.

According to the article, the worker was a plumber who injured his arm while on the job. The company's owner stated that the plumber arrived at a jobsite one day and asked to work. The company's owner stated that he hired the plumber as a contractor. Although the company's owner provided large tools, he did not supply the hand tools, a truck, or training. As a result, the plumber's claim was denied because he was not an employee of the company. When the plumber argued that the company admitted the existence of an employment relationship by referring to him as an employee in the company's answer to his petition, the board rejected his argument. The board said that a party's overall characterizations in its pleadings do not constitute admissions of legal matters.

The article summarizes that, in Pennsylvania, an employer's failure to specifically deny the existence of an employment relationship does not automatically admit an employment relationship existed. To establish an employer-employee relationship, a worker must show that the employer exercised sufficient control over his or her work.

According to a recent ruling by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, a workers' compensation insurer can suspend benefits when an injured worker refuses to enter a detox program... even if the program will not treat the worker's medical condition or help him or her return to employment.

The ruling arose from a case involving an employee who had been receiving workers' compensation benefits for 10 years for a lumbar spine injury when her former employer tried to end her benefits. The workers' comp judge denied the employer's request to terminate the benefits, but instead said that the injured employee should enter a detoxification program to help wean her off the prescription pain medication she had been taking for her injury.

When the injured employee refused the detox treatment, the employer filed a petition to suspend her workers' comp benefits on the grounds that she was refusing reasonable medical treatment.

At the hearing, the physician who would oversee the injured employee's detox program testified that although the treatment would not allow her to return to her pre-injury job, it would allow her to return to normal functioning and enhance her prospects for gainful employment. The judge agreed with the physician's opinion, ruling that the detox program was reasonable medical treatment.

While this "forfeiture" provision of the Workers Compensation Act is rarely used, injured workers should be aware of its existence. Often a treating physician will offer surgery, however the patient is reluctant because the surgeon advises that the procedure has many risks and may not improve the patient's condition and could actually worsen the injury and disability. In those instances it is usually considered reasonable to refuse the treatment, however every case is unique and therefore an injured worker should always consult with his or her attorney before making the decision to refuse treatment.

According to an article on the OCRegister.com, a Murietta, CA roofing contractor pleaded guilty to 16 felony counts, including perjury, filing false documents, and making false statements, for failing to provide workers' comp insurance for an employee who injured himself.

The article reported that, according to prosecutors, the roofing contractor purchased the minimum workers' compensation insurance policy for his company, then reported that he had no employees. To hide their employment, he paid his workers in cash and submitted inaccurate payrolls reports.

When an employee filed a workers' compensation claim as a result of a fall from a roof, the roofing contractor denied that the man worked for him. As a result, the employee was denied benefits.

The maximum sentence for the convictions is 21 years and eight months in prison. According to prosecutors, the roofing contractor is expected to be sentenced to three years in state prison.

Continue reading "California Roofing Contractor Found Guilty of Workers' Comp Fraud" »

A Pennsylvania appeals court ruled that Kraft Foods Inc. could not reduce a workers' compensation claimant's partial disability benefits because it did not provide any evidence of actual job openings that were available to the claimant.

In February 2004, the claimant injured his right knee while employed as a utility worker for Kraft. In 2007, Kraft sought to reduce the claimant's benefits by saying that "work was generally available." The appeals court did not accept Kraft's argument that under Pennsylvania law it could use testimony from a rehab counselor that general, entry-level jobs were available to the claimant. Instead, the appeals board ruled that Kraft needed to show that "existing actual jobs are open and available" to the claimant.

Continue reading "PA Court Rules Kraft Can't Reduce Workers' WC Benefits" »

Earlier this month, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry (L & I) announced that the statewide average weekly wage for injuries occurring on and after Jan. 1, 2010 would be $845 per week. The average weekly wage for 2009 was $836.

According to the L & I website, under the Workers' Compensation Act, injured workers are entitled to wage-loss benefits equal to two-thirds of their weekly wage for a work-related injury.

How much money you will receive while on workers' compensation depends on:

• Whether you are on total or partial disability
• How long you have been employed by your employer
• Whether you were working for more than one employer at the time of your injury
• How much you regularly earn from your employer

Continue reading "Pennsylvania Announces Statewide Average Weekly Wage for Injuries for 2010" »

MercuryNews.com of San Jose, CA recently reported that three executives and a foreman of a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning installation company in Hollister, CA are facing felony charges of forcing employees to return more than $170,000 in salary from public projects in Santa Clara County.

The charges against the men include taking and receiving the wages of a worker, falsely reporting wages paid on a public works payroll reporting form, violations of workers' compensation insurance premium fraud, and making a false or fraudulent statement to discourage a worker from claiming benefits or pursuing a workers' compensation claim.

Company executives would issue a paycheck to workers based on the hourly wage for public works projects, but then demand that the workers return about 75 percent of the paycheck. When a contractor is awarded a public works contract, the contractor must certify that they are paying employees the prevailing wage. The kickback scheme netted more than $170,000 for the company executives.

It is alleged that one of the executives committed workers' compensation premium fraud by misclassifying employee wages to their workers' compensation insurance carrier to reduce their premium. It is also alleged that two employees were dissuaded from reporting their work-related injuries to doctors. As a result, the workers were denied medical care and workers' compensation benefits.

A recent report from the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) shows that workers' comp costs for injured workers aged 65 and older are generally lower than younger employees because older employees are paid less.

Although workers aged 65 and older make up a small share of employment and injury and illness cases - below 5 percent - the number of workers 65 and older has increased by nearly 50 percent since the late 1980s. The report estimates that the number of older workers is likely to increase due to the state of the economy. Many older employees must postpone their retirements and continue to work in the face of depleted life savings and reduced home values.

The report highlighted the following findings:

• The greatest cause of injury among older workers are falls, slips, and trips


• There are less claims for older workers in the more hazardous manufacturing and construction-related industries and occupations


• Claims are higher for older workers in the leisure and hospitality industry and food preparation

The NCCI report found that the percentage of those aged 65 and older who were looking for work was 11 percent in 1990 and increased to 17 percent in 2008. In addition to many older workers not having the funds to be able to retire, many are healthier and able to continue to remain in the workforce longer.

As older workers age, they face challenges in the workplace such as a deterioration in eyesight, hearing, strength, flexibility, reaction time, and mental processes. Employers can reduce the risk of injury to older workers by enhancing lighting where necessary, installing slip-resistant flooring, providing handrails, and installing noise dampening materials where hearing may be an issue.

A federal jury awarded more than $1.9 million in pay and $3.5 million in compensation for emotional stress to two scientists who said they were let go from their jobs at a Pennsylvania chemical producer because of their age.

The men were 2 of 29 employees, all over the age of 55, who were laid off during a workforce reduction. Their lawsuit claimed that, when selecting among workers in similar positions, the company chose the oldest employees for layoff.

The jury found that the company willfully discriminated against the men, which entitled them to double back pay damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Continue reading "Two Pennsylvania Employees Receive Large Payoff for Age Discrimination Case" »