Posts Tagged ‘Nevada’

Cavalcade of Risk & workers comp news briefs

Wednesday, January 12th, 2011

It’s Cavalcade of Risk week and issue #122 is hosted by our friend David Williams at Health Business Blog – check it out!
Industry pulse – Good news. Robert Hartwig of the Insurance Information Institute takes the pulse of the property casualty industry and sees signs of life: Insurance Industry On The Mend. “Mr. Hartwig said in comparison to all of 2009, the industry’s 2010 third-quarter results are close to all of the prior years. While the industry is not back to where it was prior to the economic downturn in 2007 when it reported property and casualty net income of $62.5 billion, it is performing significantly better than the worst of the downturn in 2008 when p&c income came in at slightly more than $3 billion.”
That’s good news, but it’s not time to break out the champagne yet. A.M. Best forecasts downward rating pressure for the commercial market and two new reports indicate that reinsurance prices should remain soft in 2011.
Physician dispensed drugs – If you are an employer or an insurer and this topic isn’t yet on your radar, it needs to be. Joe Paduda posts about recent NCCI report on physician-dispensed drugs in workers comp, a significant growth area that NCCI says is putting upward pressure on WC costs. California took steps to regulate the practice a few years ago after learning that repackaged costs were two to twelve times higher than the fee schedule.
Labor – The New York Times reports that cash-strapped states are looking to curb labor unions. Expect a flurry of legislative initiatives to limit the power of labor unions representing government employees. While both parties are wrestling with ways to keep state budgets in line, the article notes:
“But in some cases — mostly in states with Republican governors and Republican statehouse majorities — officials are seeking more far-reaching, structural changes that would weaken the bargaining power and political influence of unions, including private sector ones.”
Prevention works – A concerted campaign to reduce textile service worker injuries is working, according to the recently released annual TRSA Textile Services Industry Safety Report. Recordable injuries and illnesses dropped by 17 percent from 2008 to the 2009, and have dropped by 50% since 2005. Sandy Smith reports on SafeTRSA, an industry-wide safety initiative to improve worker safety through awareness, education and training.
Breast cancer & comp – At Comp Time, Roberto Ceniceros discusses City of Las Vegas v. Lawson. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that a firefighter is entitled to a presumption that her breast cancer arose from her on-the-job exposure to benzene. His post also discusses male breast cancer.
Dramatic Australia flood footage – Office workers catch footage of a modest creek turning into a raging torrent sweeping cars away. More news and dramatic videos of the cataclysmic Australian flooding is available on MSNBC. At least 16 people are reported dead and more than 90 missing in what has been likened to an inland tsunami. Brisbane is under siege. You can follow breaking news on Twitter at #Brisbane.

Nevada Supreme Court rules suicide compensable

Monday, August 11th, 2008

Is a suicide compensable? In certain circumstances it is, according to a recent ruling by the Nevada Supreme Court in Sharon Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMA and Flamingo Hilton-Laughlin. While Nevada state law prohibits benefits if a worker’s death occurs due to a “willful intention to injure himself,” this does not apply if a “sufficient chain of causation is established.” Roberto Ceniceros of Business Insurance noted that, “To establish such a chain, claimants must demonstrate that the employee suffered an industrial injury that in turn caused a psychological injury severe enough to override rational judgment. Claimants must then establish that the psychological injury caused the employee to commit suicide, the court said.
Dan Vredenburg was a bartender for the Flamingo Hilton in Laughlin. He suffered back injuries in a fall down stairs while working and was compensated for his injuries. According to the ReviewJournal.com, he suffered relentless pain. He couldn’t keep food down and spent his life in bed. Nealy three years after this accident, he killed himself. Under the state’s “willful intention” clause, his widow was denied benefits several times until the matter reached the Supreme Court and the precedent-setting determination was made.
Other workers comp-suicide rulings: MA, WY, ND
There have been other cases involving suicide where workers comp has been awarded to surviving spouses. This past November, we covered a suicide that was deemed compensable in Massachusetts. In that case, Gilbert Dube injured his back at work. When he tried to return to work on light duty, he was terminated. He then grew depressed and commit suicide a few weeks later. The insurer made the case that his termination was an independent, intervening event that broke the chain of causation. At the hearing, the claimant’s attorney introduced medical evidence that the employee’s back injury caused him to become clinically depressed, and that the termination exacerbated his depression to a degree that he was acting irrationally when he commit suicide. The justices concluded that the injury and termination were inextricably connected.
In the 1992 case of State ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Div. v. Ramsey, an Appeals Court upheld benefits for a decedent’s widow using the chain of causation test as the predominating principle in its decision.
Steven R. Ramsey was receiving workers compensation benefits after suffering a severe 1988 industrial accident that left him unable to resume work. In 1990, about 5 weeks after his pain medication was mostly discontinued, his pain increased, he became depressed, and he killed himself. In determining to continue benefits, the Court agreed with his widow:

“The circumstances of this case are clear. Steve Ramsey would not have committed suicide if not for his work place injuries. There were no pre-existing conditions that caused him to be susceptible or prone to suicide, there were not intervening conditions or situations that occurred between the time of his work place injury and his death, and Steve Ramsey continued to do all those things necessary to try and get well. But for the injury at the Wydak Power Plant, Steve Ramsey would not have committed suicide.”

In the same year, a North Dakota Appeals Court denied benefits to the widow of Richard L. Kackman in the wake of his suicide, finding no cause and effect relationship between Richard’s work injuries and his suicide. In this case, two doctors presented conflicting testimony. One doctor concluded that Richard’s work injuries caused chronic illness, which caused depression, which in turn caused him to take his life. The other physician stated that Richard had a prior history of interpersonal problems, delusions, and a paranoid disorder before any work injuries occurred, and those preexisting conditions were what caused Richard to commit suicide. The Court agreed and denied benefits.
These cases show the importance of addressing pain and depression in recovery plans, particularly those involving life-altering injuries. Suicides in workers comp will likely continue to be outliers, but state courts have shown sympathy to the idea that pain and depression can pierce a “willful intention” defense by the insurer. The courts seem consistent from state-to-state in requiring a chain of causation. But despite the precedent-setting nature, we note Jane Ann Morrison’s observation in the Nevada ruling: “None of the lawyers I spoke to thought there would be a rash of suicides by injured workers as a result of this ruling.”

Nevada leads the way

Thursday, November 13th, 2003

An interesting thing happened in Nevada today. And it may eventually affect employers around the rest of the country, especially in Massachusetts.

Workers’ compensation is amazing. It’s very stable in that every employee in the nation is covered by one form of it or another (except some of those in Texas; but we’ll write about that at another time).
But it’s also a very fluid social engineering concept because every state has its own version of the law. Fifty states, fifty laws.

Which brings us back to Nevada. The state, like most other states in the nation, is represented by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) for purposes of rate filing. Some states, like Massachusetts, have their own “Bureaus” that represent insurers in the state and file rate request changes with their respective Divisions of Insurance.

Today, Nevada’s Commissioner of Insurance approved a rate filing request of the NCCI, and for most Nevada employers this will a mean a reduction in their next workers’ compensation premium of about 12.3%.

But the really interesting thing involves what is known as the ARAP. In Massachusetts, that stands for All Risk Adjustment Program, and is a kind of Experience Modification surcharge on top of the regular Experience Modification. In the rest of the country, ARAP stands for Assigned Risk Adjustment Program. Here’s what the difference is: in Massachusetts every emplpoyer, whether in the Assigned Risk Pool or the voluntary market, is eligible for an ARAP surcharge. In the rest of the country, the surcharge only applies to employers in the Pool. But regardless of where an employer happens to be, the maximum surcharge is 49%. That is, until today.

Hidden in the Nevada filing is a reduction in the maximum ARAP surcharge, from 49% to 25%. This is the main reason why overall rates in Nevada’s Assigned Risk Pool will drop by approximately 15%.
We’re going to watch further NCCI rate filings to see if the ARAP maximum surcharge is reduced in other states, as well. In addition, we’ll continue to lobby on behalf of Massachusetts employers to have the ARAP surcharge apply only to employers in the Pool. And we’ll keep you informed.
Peace to all.