 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Anderson v. Longmont Toyota12/6/2004
learly intended an absolute bar to all subsequent TTD benefits involving that employer, the debate actually demonstrates the General Assembly's intent not to bar the employee's subsequent worsening condition claim.
Representative Berry, a sponsor, stated the bill's sole purpose was "to clarify that temporary total disability is for when you're off work and injured, and it's not for any other reason." Transcript of Hearings on House Bill 99-1105 before the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee, 62nd General Assembly, 1st Sess. (Jan. 14, 1999 and Jan. 25, 1999) and the Senate State Affairs Committee, 62nd General Assembly, 1st Sess. (Feb. 22, 1999 and Mar. 15, 1999) at 2 (statement of Representative Berry) (hereinafter "Transcript of Hearings").
Representative Berry then turned to testimony by supporters of the bill. They said it would remedy situations in which employees: (1) were fired from the modified employment because of inappropriate or unlawful behavior such as assaulting a supervisor, drinking on the job , or failing to report to work, or (2) left modified employment for other job opportunities or because they did not want to work. For example, supporters of the bill made the following statements:
Typically, we see these cases in situations where an employee has returned to modified work, the employer is accommodating restrictions, and then the employee leaves for reasons that are very often the employee's own fault; not always, but almost always the employees own fault.
We've seen cases, for example, where an employee was discharged for drinking on the job and then went and received TTD or wage loss benefits from the ALJ, the Administrative Law Judge, and didn't even have to show a job search following her discharge.
She simply went in, proved to the ALJ that she had restrictions--and, of course, everyone in this situation, doing modified work, has restrictions. . . . She was fired for drinking on the job . That was apparently irrelevant to the ALJ, and she was awarded benefits. This is the sort of problem we want to solve. We think this bill will solve it.
It [PDM Molding] has been applied in similar cases where, for example, the employee was fired for assaulting a supervisor. It was applied in one case where the claimant was returned to modified work, and then a co-employee apparently tipped off the employer that the claimant was not authorized to work in this country, that he had falsified his work documents at his hiring.
The employer looked into that and told the employee that he was temporarily suspended. He could return to the job if he brought work authorization, valid work authorization. And he simply left, he never returned. And then showed up in the hearing room, made a claim for temporary total disability benefits, received those benefits, and once again, never had to show a job search following his discharge.
We think these are the sort of cases that this will correct.
Transcript of Hearings at 22-23 (statement of Curt Kirsksium, Attorney, Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority).
So what the bill does is to basically get back, I think, to the fundamentals of what the Workers' Comp system is meant to be and to say that you're entitled to temporary disability benefits if the only reason that you are unable to work is because of your on-thejob injury , not because of the fact that you want to retire or take a sabbatical or that you were, in fact, brought back to the job site and were fired for some other reason unrelated to your on-the-job injury. Transcript of Hearings at 5-6 (statement of John Berry, Workers' Compensation Coalition).
Supporters
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|