Governor to take away Worker's Compensation Benefits!

Hi friends. I just found out that Governor Pataki is trying to pass a law that limits the amount of time a person can have Worker's Compensation benefits, only a few years. There will no longer be lifetime benefits for injured workers declared permanently partially disabled. This includes my father who is permanently partially disabled. If this gets passed, our loved ones will be without any benefits, their livelihood, their survival....

Please read the attached documents I have enclosed and please contact your State Legislator and opposing bill S.6841 AND supporting bill S.6135, which if passed will give a 'fair' increase in benefits. Please do this for me and my family, even if you don't know anyone who is currently on Worker's Compensation. We would GREATLY appreciate it. It only takes 5 minutes, I just did it.

Also, please forward this to everyone in your address book. We need to get the word out.

I thank you in advance for your support.

Love you all,
Denise

KPtoys, I am not sure I understand your question. Do you mean the corporation's expenses will be less?? If that is what you are asking, yes. That is what they are trying to do. Make it less expensive for the corporations and insurance companies. That is why the corps and insurance companies are so for it. They won't have to pay people who get hurt on the job.

Ok, well as I am not for making it so people who have serious claims loose their $$ I think the system is seriously flawed.

FH is a self employeed contractor. As such he needs to carry workers compenation insurance. Our annual bill for the coverage is over $11,000 a year!!! For any employees he has to be covered... my FH himself is excluded from the policy because it would be MUCH more expensive to cover himself as well... thousands more.

Now being self employeed has its benifits but paying a HUGE chunk of money to have workers comp insurance is NUTZ!!! His liability is under $1,500.

There are MANY people who screw the system... maybe there should be more investigations into people who can not earn a living because of an accident on the job instead of making everyone suffer... things just arent right.

Still not clear.

This would be a going-forward issue since you can't change the rules for those already receiving WC.

I am a comp claimant, myself.

Taking comp and putting a limit on it would open up corporations and business to lawsuits. The whole purpose of Workers Compensation is not only to make the employee whole but to protect the employer from lawsuits. If you got injured at work and sued your company for your injuries can you imagine how much companies would lose?

I'm not sure this is the smartest of bills to push but I understand the reasoning behind it. WC fraud is outrageous. Costs for WC policies is also getting insane. Seems like a desperate attempt to cut costs. Still it seems unlikely that the government would open up more possible fraudulent lawsuits just to save a few dollars from the start only to lose millions in court.

This type of bill/law would crush small businesses with just one lawsuit. Avg slip & fall lawsuit as of a few years ago was nearly half a million dollars. I don't think a bodega could afford that.

It would also force WC benefits to become public. This could help doctors get what they deserve for their services, since Comp currently pays crap.

If comp was no longer unlimited then workers could sue for pain and suffering. Something not currently covered under comp.

You sure this is legit?

Seems like an awful lot of loose ends.

The system is seriously flawed. But to not examine each individual case and to just take away from everyone.

My Dad is legitimately disabled. 12 years ago he developed lung disease and it was determined in a court of law that it was from the job (not providing the workers with respirators). Most of his friends who had the lung disease ended up getting cancer. Well guess what, my Dad was just diagnosed with cancer. So now we are trying to treat him and get him healed and deal with this. Then we hear about this law.

Yes, there should be a system when each case is investigated. I am sorry your DH pays so much.. But there has to be a better way.

Yes, I am certain this is legit.

If anyone would like to see the information I have on this issue, please send me your email address. The documents I have are in PDF format and I can't post it here.

Thanks,
Denise

Here is the website:

All information available at http://www.senate.state.ny.us/ by accessing 'bills and laws' and entering S6841 and S6135.

FM back

WHOA!
I'm really lost now!
Everything in S6841 is BENEFICIAL not harmful at all!!!!

They are giving more benefits, forcing faster movement on the behalf of WC board, tier level benefits for disabled, created a limitation to the max amount a disabled can earn if they don't get another job while allowing for those parties to prove earning capacity and get more money, create a trust fund for children dependents, increase the max weekly wage loss benefits, etc.

How is this harmful. What Section are you reading?

And it only applies to the volunteer firefighters' benefit law, the volunteer ambulance workers'.

It also takes away the time consuming alternate solution measure as a required form of settlement.

I'll go read the other one. For this bill I see nothing malicious.

Perhaps I missed something. I only read through to section 30.

wait..
I should add that bill also clearly and repeatedly removes, decreases and punishes any claimant who was committing a crime at the time of injury or somehow was involved in a crime at the time of recovery.

Ok, read them both. Neither state any limitation to benefits which there would be no more benefits allowed after a certain point. Meaning you get hurt and you only get X years of coverage. You need to point that out to me. From what I read both bills are EXTREMELY beneficial to the average worker. Getting faster and better responses to their injuries (which is something I could have used) as well as increase the small insignificant allowances by incremental amounts to get people to their max benefit level faster.

32 w. Other cases. In all other cases [in this class] of permanent
33 partial disability, the compensation shall be sixty-six and two-thirds
34 [per centum] percent of the difference between [his] the injured employ-
35 ee's average weekly wages and his or her wage-earning capacity thereaft-
36 er in the same employment or otherwise[,]. Compensation under this para-
37 graph shall be payable during the continuance of such permanent partial
38 disability, however, all compensation payable under this paragraph
39 combined with all compensation otherwise payable both under this subdi-
40 vision and under subdivisions two and five of this section shall not
41 exceed (i) five hundred weeks in cases in which the loss of wage-earning
42 capacity is greater than ninety percent; (ii) four hundred fifty weeks
43 in cases in which the loss of wage-earning capacity is greater than
44 eighty percent but not more than ninety percent; (iii) four hundred
45 weeks in cases in which the loss of wage-earning capacity is greater
46 than seventy percent but not more than eighty percent; (iv) three
47 hundred seventy-five weeks in cases in which the loss of wage-earning
48 capacity is greater than sixty percent but not more than seventy
49 percent; (v) three hundred fifty weeks in cases in which the loss of
50 wage-earning capacity is greater than fifty percent but not more than
51 sixty percent; (vi) three hundred twenty-five weeks in cases in which
52 the loss of wage-earning capacity is greater than forty percent but not
53 more than fifty percent; (vii) three hundred weeks in cases in which the
54 loss of wage-earning capacity is greater than thirty percent but not
55 more than forty percent; (viii) two hundred seventy-five weeks in cases
56 in which the loss of wage-earning capacity is greater than twenty

S. 6841 7

1 percent but not more than thirty percent; (ix) two hundred sixty weeks
2 in cases in which the loss of wage-earning capacity is greater than ten
3 percent but not more than twenty percent and (x) two hundred fifty weeks
4 in cases in which the loss of wage-earning capacity is ten percent or
5 less [but subject to reconsideration of the degree of such impairment by
6 the board on its own motion or upon application of any party in inter-
7 est].

FM back:
Paraphrase:


So if you can still work they are going to schedule your max earned income from lost wages of your old employment prior to the injury.

A firefighter who worked gets burned and now works a desk job gets his desk job salary and also his disability income benefit from the injury up to 66 2/3rds of his old income compared to his new income for up to 9 years. Under the assumption he is now working and bringing in income. Giving that person time to acclimate to the new earning as opposed to just saying “Hey you gotta a job, no need to pay you for your lost income any more”.

It is trying to prevent workers who have gone back to work for YEARS since their injury still making income on a disability (this does NOT mean medical bills). Which honestly makes sense to me since I cant just sit at home because Im injuried. Lets also not forget that this income is not under the same rules as normal salary.

Still this is ONLY in reference to firefighters, etc and it does NOT apply to the Medical bills (which can be the most expensive part of the injury) which remains unlimited.