By: Thomas C. Baumann

Injured workers who have received 104 weeks of total disability benefits can be required to submit to what the Worker’s Compensation act calls an impairment rating evaluation or IRE. The purpose of the examination is to rate the whole body impairment of the injured worker under the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. If the injured worker’s whole body impairment is found to be less than 50%, compensation converts from total disability to partial disability. This puts a limit on benefits to 500 weeks from the date of the exam.

The Bureau of Worker’s Compensation requires physicians who perform IREs to meet certain qualifications:

—Be board certified and licensed in Pennsylvania

—Be active in clinical practice at least 20 hours per week. Section 123.103 of the act 57 regulations defines active in clinical practice as follows:” the act of providing preventive care and the evaluation, treatment and management of medical conditions of patients on an ongoing basis.”

This would seem to rule out a retired doctor who limits his practice to performing independent medical evaluations or serving as a reviewing doctor for purposes of utilization review. It would also appear to rule out a physician who’s only treating practice was as an emergency room physician, as that would not appear to involve managing treatment on an ongoing basis.

If an injured worker is asked to submit to a rating examination, he or she should talk to a lawyer if they have not already done so. There may be ways to challenge the adverse effects of a rating evaluation. Only an experienced workers compensation attorney would be able to recognize the potential challenges. Here at Abes Baumann, we have highly experienced attorneys with many years of practice under their belt. Each of them is able to recognize the issues regarding this matter.

Today’s post was shared by The Workers’ Injury Law & Advocacy Group and comes from cjonline.com

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

By: Douglas A. Williams

In IA Construction Corp. v. WCAB (Rhodes), a very important case decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on May 25, 2016, the Court determined that a Workers’ Compensation Judge has the right to reject the opinion of a physician performing an Impairment Rating (IRE) exam – even when the injured worker offers no evidence to rebut the IRE physician’s opinion.

In Rhodes, the injured worker had sustained a traumatic brain injury. Subsequently, the employer required the injured worker to undergo an IRE, which was performed by Dr. Lateef, who is board certified in physical rehabilitation and pain medicine. In the view of the Workers’ Compensation Judge, Dr. Lateef performed only a cursory evaluation of the condition that resulted from the injured workers’ traumatic brain injury. For this reason, she rejected his testimony as “not credible.” Had the Employer persuaded the Judge to accept Dr. Lateef’s testimony, the period during which the injured worker could receive benefits would have been limited.

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision and found, in essence, that the Judge erred in rejecting testimony that was un-contradicted. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court and reinstated the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s opinion. The Supreme Court noted that the Commonwealth Court had conflated the concept of whether or not a physician is “qualified” to offer an opinion with whether or not the physician’s opinion is “persuasive.” The Supreme Court reiterated that the Workers’ Compensation Judge is the ultimate arbitrator of whether or not a witness’s testimony is persuasive.

The injured worker in the Rhodes case was represented by attorney Thomas Baumann of Abes Baumann.

By: Roger D. Horgan

Have you stopped to wonder what will happen if the Uber driver has an accident either while you are in the vehicle, or if he strikes your vehicle? Like any new technology, ridesharing applications like Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar have created novel legal issues. First are the questions concerning legal responsibility and insurance coverage when accidents occur. Fundamentally, these are privately owned vehicles driven by individuals, not taxi’s owned by a company and driven by an employee of that company. In the case of a taxi accident, the taxi company is responsible for the negligence of its drivers under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The ridesharing companies contend that they are simply computer applications which bring independent drivers together with those who are seeking transportation. They contend that the drivers are independent contractors, not employees, and therefore claim that they are not responsible to answer for the conduct of the drivers.

While all drivers are supposed to have automobile insurance in Pennsylvania, the reality is that many people drive without insurance, and that many more carry the minimum liability coverage required by law ($15,000.00). Those utilizing the ridesharing services, and those injured by the drivers of those services, are at significant risk that the driver lacks any insurance, or adequate insurance. In reality, the likelihood is that the driver would lack any insurance because his insurance company will refuse to answer for acts that take place during the course of driving for the ridesharing service.

Luckily, these concerns are being taken seriously in Pennsylvania, and there is legislation pending that is intended to address the complexities that arise from the use of ridesharing services. Among the groups that have had a significant influence upon the contents of this proposed legislation is the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, of which the lawyers of this firm are members. There is a high likelihood that the proposed legislation will be passed in one form or another, and that it will address the ridesharing issues in a comprehensive fashion. While the personal insurance coverage of the passenger or other victim will remain critically important, this legislation, if adopted, will eliminate the gaps in coverage that currently exist, and will continue to exist if legislation is not adopted.

Currently before the Pennsylvania Senate is Senate Bill 984. This legislation proposes to fix some of the issues encountered in an accident with a rideshare company. The ridesharing company must be registered and licensed in the Commonwealth. There is a one-time application fee of $50,000.00 to obtain such a license. The company will be required to keep accurate records, and to maintain a website available for Pennsylvania customers to review. They will be required to maintain liability insurance in excess of that required by individuals in the Commonwealth. In particular, once the driver signs on to the ridesharing app he will be covered by insurance for bodily injury in the amount of $50,000.00 per person/$100,000.00 per accident. In addition, he will be covered by $25,000.00 for property damage. Once the driver actually picks up the passenger he will be covered by $500,000.00 per accident for bodily injury, and $25,000.00 in medical coverage for the passengers. Further provisions of Bill 984 assure the safety of the vehicles being used for this service, that the drivers have their criminal and driving backgrounds thoroughly vetted, and that unsafe vehicles and drivers be prohibited from driving for the ridesharing companies. There will be a zero tolerance rule for drugs and alcohol. There will be a nondiscrimination provision with respect to disabled persons. The drivers will be permitted to obtain fares only through the ridesharing app, and will be prohibited from direct solicitation, and from accepting cash payment for rides.

There is no doubt that the ridesharing services are here to stay, and Pennsylvanians will be well served if Bill 984 or similar legislation is adopted and becomes the law.

Today’s post was shared by The Workers’ Injury Law & Advocacy Group and comes from www.independent.com

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Today’s post was shared by The Workers’ Injury Law & Advocacy Group and comes from www.usatoday.com

Marijuana seized by Deuel County (Neb.) sheriff’s deputies is stacked in an unused jail cell in the county courthouse June 2, 2014.(Photo: Trevor Hughes, USA TODAY) DENVER — Sheriffs from Colorado and neighboring states Kansas and Nebraska say in a lawsuit to be filed Thursday that Colorado’s marijuana law creates a “crisis of conscience” by pitting the state law against the Constitution and puts an economic burden on other states. The lawsuit asks a federal court in Denver to strike down Colorado’s Amendment 64 that legalized the sale of recreational marijuana and to close the state’s more than 330 licensed marijuana stores. Lead plaintiff, Larimer County, Colo., Sheriff Justin Smith, calls the case a “constitutional showdown.” Each day, he says, he must decide whether to violate the Colorado Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Colorado legalized recreational marijuana sales Jan. 1, 2014, but marijuana remains illegal at the federal level. Colorado is “asking every peace officer to violate their oath,” Smith said. “What we’re being forced to do … makes me ineligible for office. Which constitution are we supposed to uphold?” The out-of-state sheriffs say the flow of Colorado’s legal marijuana across the border has increased drug arrests, overburdened police and courts and cost them money in overtime. Felony drug arrests in the town of Chappell in Deuel County, Neb., 7 miles north of the Colorado border, jumped 400% over…

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on