Work Disincentives of Workers' Compensation Permanent Partial Disability Benefits: Evidence for Canada

1996 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas E. Hyatt
Keyword(s):  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Disability Benefits ◽  
Work Disincentives

Literature Review

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-8
Author(s):  
James B. Talmage
Keyword(s):  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Body Parts ◽  
Injured Worker ◽  
Disability Benefits ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Permanent Disability ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Work Related Injury ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Compensation Law

Abstract Evaluating physicians should understand how their impairment evaluations are used, and to these ends Section 1.5 of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fourth Edition, discusses impairment and workers’ compensation. Permanent disability rewards may be paid according to a schedule that associates impairments of certain body parts, functions, or systems (eg, amputation or loss of sight or hearing) with specific awards. Typically, a schedule in the workers’ compensation law equates disability and a maximum number of weeks of benefits, but what occurs when an injured worker has both scheduled and unscheduled injuries? Under Colorado statute, scheduled injuries involve those to the neck, head, torso, and any injury not specifically enumerated in the statutory schedule. Because schedules usually do not cover all conditions following injuries, nonscheduled awards are available and are based on the extent of impairment, the nature of the injury, and the employee's occupation, experience, training, and age. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that when a work-related injury results in both a scheduled and a nonscheduled injury, the scheduled injury must be converted to a whole person impairment rating and combined with the nonscheduled injury's whole person impairment when calculating permanent disability benefits. In its decision, the court relied heavily on and cited provisions in the AMA Guides.

U.S. Industries v. Director: “Claim” Versus “Condition” in the Analysis of Workers' Compensation Cases

1986 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-303
Author(s):  
Jordan Yospe
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Social Insurance ◽  
Compensation System ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Statutory Interpretation ◽  
Disability Benefits ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Disability Claim ◽  
At Home

AbstractUnder most workers' compensation statutes, an injury must “arise out of” and “in the course of” employment in order to qualify as a compensable disability. In U.S. Industries v. Director, the Supreme Court held that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act must be strictly construed to avoid transforming the compensation system into a form of social insurance. In U.S. Industries, the Court denied a disability claim based on an arthritic condition which was manifested while the worker was at home in bed. This Note contends that the Supreme Court neglected to consider pertinent medical realities when analyzing the causation question. Thus, the decision undermines the overall rationale behind workers' compensation legislation. Nonetheless, the Note argues that the case does not relax the requirement of adequately scrutinizing the causative elements underlying any reasonable claim for disability benefits. An analysis adequately accommodating both medical and legal facts, instead of relying upon the vagaries of statutory interpretation, is necessary to improve the efficiency and fairness of workers' compensation disability determinations.

scholarly journals Permanent Disability Benefits in Workers' Compensation.

ILR Review ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 301
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Kniesner ◽  
Monroe Berkowitz ◽  
John F. Burton
Keyword(s):  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Disability Benefits ◽  
Permanent Disability

Legal Update: Use of Impairment as a Threshold Determinate for Disability

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-10
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Work Ability ◽  
Work Disability ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Disability Benefits ◽  
Work Injury ◽  
Working Population ◽  
Critical Question

Abstract Workers’ compensation jurisdictions use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), in various ways, including as a proxy for disability, either as a direct correlate or as a threshold indicator. The AMA Guides clearly states that it should not be used for direct estimates of work ability: “it is inappropriate to use the Guides’ criteria or rating to make direct estimates of work disability.” The Maine Supreme Court ruled on two cases in which the resolution depended on the critical question of what impairment was being rated—that due to the injury or to all impairment. The court found that statutory language regarding personal injury may include a pre-existing condition when the work injury aggravates, accelerates, or combines with the pre-existing condition in a significant manner. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also uses impairment as a threshold to determine if an employee is totally disabled: Act 57 requires employees who have received total disability benefits for 104 weeks to submit to an impairment rating evaluation. The actions in both states raise questions about the reasonableness of using impairment to determine disability: What is the average extent of impairment among the working population? How can multisystem impairment be rated effectively? Few physicians have been trained in the use of the AMA Guides, and fewer understand the complexities of multisystem rating.

scholarly journals O2C.2 Does region of residence matter for return-to-work after work-related injury? A comparative analysis of six canadian workers’ compensation jurisdictions

2019 ◽  
Vol 76 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A16.1-A16
Author(s):  
Robert Macpherson ◽  
Hui Shen ◽  
Mieke Koehoorn ◽  
Benjamin Amick ◽  
Alex Collie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Return To Work ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Work Disability ◽  
Injured Workers ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Disability Benefits ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Work Related Injury ◽  
Urban Rural

ObjectivesTo investigate regional differences in return-to-work following work-related injury and whether these differences persist after adjusting for individual characteristics.MethodsWorkers’ compensation claims from six Canadian provinces were used to create comparable cohorts of workers aged 15–80 with a work-related injury resulting in at least one disability day from 2011 to 2015. Workers’ residential postal codes were mapped to Census standard geographic units to categorize workers into six regions representing decreasing urban density and metropolitan influence (ranging from large urban areas of 100,000+people to rural areas of <10 000 people with no metropolitan influence). Cox regression models were used to estimate the effect of urban-rural residence on the likelihood of injured workers transitioning off work disability benefits within one-year post-injury, adjusting for confounders, including provincial compensation jurisdiction. Models were stratified by industry sectors.ResultsThe cohort included 7 46 029 work disability claims, of which the majority resided in large urban areas (69%). Unadjusted models showed that workers residing in smaller urban and rural areas had a lower likelihood of transitioning off work disability benefits compared to those in large urban areas. Urban-rural differences persisted in adjusted models (e.g. HR=0.91 95% CI 0.89, 0.94 for workers in rural areas with no metropolitan influence). Industry-stratified models showed that greater differences existed between urban and rural places of residence for workers in the transportation and construction sectors, and smaller differences for workers in the health care and manufacturing sectors.ConclusionsThe main finding suggests that injured workers in more rural areas face barriers in returning to work and that workers’ compensation resources may need to be allocated to address these regional disparities. Future research will incorporate both individual and regional-level variables in a multilevel model framework to identify the characteristics that are the most important in explaining variability in work disability duration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document