State News

NWCDN is a network of law firms dedicated to protecting employers in workers’ compensation claims.


NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.  


Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.


Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.


Now Considering Firms for Our Network in

LEGISLATIVE AND CASE LAW UPDATE

Senate Bill 190 is a workers compensation bill passed this 2025 session. It allows the Utah Labor Cimmission to establish a fee schedule for hospitals which may charge for services based on Medicare reimbursement rates if the commission so determines. This bill also prohibits balance billing by Hospitals.

House Bill 301 is another workers compensation bill that passed. It provides for a maximum base rate at which ground ambulances can charge workers compensation and health insurers for ambulance services and provides that mileage rates will be set by rule. This bill also prohibits balance billing.

Darden Restaurant v. Chinyu James Sun v. Labor Commission, 2024 UT App 153 (Issued Oct. 24, 2024)

                Chinyu James Sun suffered injuries in July of 2020 to his neck and right shoulder when he slipped and fell while carrying a tub of ice, causing him to hit his head on a wall and right shoulder on an ice machine. Although his whole upper body was hurting, his right shoulder injury was the worst. Sun did not file a formal accident report but alleged that he informed the Darden Restaurant management in a voicemail the day of the accident. Following an evidentiary hearing in which the Darden director denied getting a voicemail about the accident, the Utah Labor Commission Administrative Law Judge determined that Sun failed to give timely notice within 180 days of his injury as required under Utah Code. Ann. §34A-2-407. On Motion for Review, the Labor Commission Appeals Board concluded that because Sun was not aware his cervical injury was likely caused by the accident until February 2021, there was no prejudice to Darden, and the neck claim was not time barred. However, the Board affirmed the ALJ decision as to the right shoulder claim. Darden appealed the determination that the neck claim was not time barred. Sun filed a cross-petition arguing that the shoulder claim should not have been dismissed because of untimely notice. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s decision to dismiss the shoulder claim but set aside the Board’s decision to allow the neck claim. The Court reasoned that, under rules of statutory construction of the provision of the reporting statute, that a claim is barred if the injured worker fails to notify the employee within 180 days of the day on which the injury occurs. Sun’s reliance upon earlier case law interpreting an earlier statute was rejected because the legislature had removed the language allowing full benefits if there was no prejudice to the employer.

C.R. England Inc. v. Labor Commission, 2024 UT App 170 (Issued Nov. 15, 2024)

                Jeziah Johnson (Johnson) was resting in a sleeper berth traveling down the road when his co-driver had to swerve to miss another vehicle. The rollover caused Johnson to sustain both low back pain and an unspecified head injury. Respondents medical evaluation concluded that Johnson sustained only a concussion, an eyebrow laceration, and a low back strain/sprain as a result of the accident. Johson’s neurologist concluded that, in addition to injuries noted above, Johnson suffered headaches, anxiety and depression because of the accident. 

                The Utah Labor Commission’s Administrative Law Judge referred the issues of causation to a medical panel. The medical panel concluded the accident caused headaches and permanently aggravated psychological injuries. The panel also mentioned that Johnson smoked cannabis which also could be contributing to his conditions. The Respondents objected to the report which suggested two reasons for the psychological injuries: namely, both the accident and the cannabis use. The ALJ agreed and requested that the medical panel clarify the report. The medical panel agreed that the cannabis use did indeed worsen Johson’s conditions but that it only worsened those conditions already caused by the accident. The ALJ ultimately awarded benefits, and, on Motion for Review, the Labor Commission affirmed. On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals held that there was substantial evidence supporting the decisions of the Labor Commission and that Johnson could prevail on the issue of causation simply by showing that the accident was a cause, and not necessarily the only cause, of Johnson’s injuries.

Waxies Enterprises inc. v. Thomas Halladay, 2025 UT App 7 (Issued Jan. 16, 2025)

                Thomas Halladay and Waxies Enterprises entered into a settlement agreement that included a Medicare Set Aside Allocation (MSA). After the settlement agreement was approved by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Waxies asked Halladay to sign two additional documents that would allow Waxies to assign its ongoing obligations under the MSA to a third party and to provide payments that would last 14 years, but only if Halladay was still living. Halladay refused to sign these documents. Halliday’s view was that the settlement agreement specifically provided for payments to be made so long as he lived which could be longer than 14 years. Waxies asked the Utah Labor Commission (Commission) to either compel Halladay to sign the additional documents or, in the alternative to set aside the settlement agreement entirely and for Halladay to reimburse the funds already paid under the settlement agreement. The ALJ assigned to the case rejected these options. On a Motion for Review the Commission’s Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision. On judicial review, the Utah Court of Appeals concluded that because there was not a meeting of the minds on how long the yearly benefits were to be paid under the MSA, the Commission had authority under its continuing jurisdiction to set aside the settlement agreement due to a lack of a meeting of the minds on a material provision. The Court also instructed the Commission to “revisit” the issue of whether there was a meeting of the minds.

 

© Copyright 2025 by Ford G. Scalley, Scalley Reading Bates Hansen & Rasmussen, P.C.

 

NEW WORKERS' COMPENSATION RATE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025

The state of Delaware, Department of Labor, Secretary of Labor, LaKresha Moultrie, has announced that the average weekly wage (AWW) in Delaware for the calendar year 2025 is $1,386.46. This wage figure was derived from data from employers participating in the State’s unemployment insurance system.


Based on this weekly wage figure, the maximum weekly worker’s compensation rate will be $924.31. The minimum workers’ compensation rate will be $308.11. The daily rates are as follows:


Effective July 1, 2025

Wage of $1,386.46 and over:

Maximum $924.31

Day 1: $132.05

Day 2: $264.09

Day 3: $396.14

Day 4: $528.18

Day 5: $660.23

Day 6: $792.27

Day 7: $924.31

Minimum $308.11


STATE OF DELAWARE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION RATE CHART HISTORY

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025

AWW $1,386.46 Maximum $924.31 Minimum $308.11

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2024

AWW $1,328.01 Maximum $885.34 Minimum $295.12

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2023

AWW $1,301.27 Maximum $867.52 Minimum $289.18

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2022

AWW $1,234.04 Maximum $822.70 Minimum $274.24

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2021

AWW $1,196.64 Maximum $797.96 Minimum $265.99

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2020

AWW $1,121.49 Maximum $747.66 Minimum $249.22

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2019

AWW $1,088.84 Maximum $725.89 Minimum $241.96

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2018

AWW $1,070.48 Maximum $713.65 Minimum $237.88

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2017

AWW $1,030.49 Maximum $686.99 Minimum $229.00

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2016

AWW $1,034.18 Maximum $689.45 Minimum $229.82

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015

AWW $1,019.44 Maximum $679.63 Minimum $226.54

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014

AWW $998.35 Maximum $665.57 Minimum $221.86

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013

AWW $991.19 Maximum $660.79 Minimum $220.26

EFFECTIVE JULY 2, 2012

AWW $967.52 Maximum $645.01 Minimum $215.00

EFFECTIVE JUNE 13,2011

AWW $933.08 Maximum $622.05 Minimum $207.35

EFFECTIVE JUNE 22,2010

AWW $914.73 Maximum $609.82 Minimum $203.27

EFFECTIVE JUNE 16,2009

AWW $916.00 Maximum $610.67 Minimum $203.55

EFFECTIVE JUNE 3, 2008

AWW $907.73 Maximum $605.15 Minimum $201.72

EFFECTIVE JUNE 7, 2007

AWW $888.38 Maximum $592.25 Minimum $197.42

EFFECTIVE JUNE 7, 2006

AWW $857.46 Maximum $571.64 Minimum $190.55

EFFECTIVE JUNE 6, 2005

AWW $815.29 Maximum $543.53 Minimum $181.18

EFFECTIVE MAY 21, 2004

AWW $785.75 Maximum $523.83 Minimum $174.61

EFFECTIVE JUNE 4, 2003

AWW $760.21 Maximum $506.81 Minimum $168.94

EFFECTIVE JUNE 14, 2002

AWW $737.35 Maximum $491.57 Minimum $163.86

EFFECTIVE JUNE 20, 2001

AWW $703.65 Maximum $469.10 Minimum $156.37

EFFECTIVE JUNE 12, 2000

AWW $674.40 Maximum $449.60 Minimum $149.87

EFFECTIVE JUNE 15, 1999

AWW $652.02 Maximum $434.68 Minimum $144.89

EFFECTIVE JUNE 11, 1998

AWW $616.67 Maximum $411.11 Minimum $137.04

EFFECTIVE JUNE 18, 1997

AWW $588.69 Maximum $392.46 Minimum $130.82

EFFECTIVE JUNE 3, 1996

AWW $558.35 Maximum $372.23 Minimum $124.08

EFFECTIVE JUNE 15, 1995

AWW $535.79 Maximum $357.10 Minimum $119.06

EFFECTIVE JUNE 14, 1994

AWW $519.25 Maximum $346.17 Minimum $115.39

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1993

AWW $508.94 Maximum $339.29 Minimum $113.10

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992

AWW $491.75 Maximum $327.83 Minimum $109.28

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1991

AWW $468.58 Maximum $312.39 Minimum $104.13

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1990

AWW $445.81 Maximum $297.21 Minimum $ 99.07

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1989

AWW $420.96 Maximum $280.64 Minimum $ 93.55

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1988

AWW $397.71 Maximum $265.14 Minimum $ 88.38

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1987

AWW $375.79 Maximum $250.53 Minimum $ 83.51

EFFECTIVE JUNE 5, 1986

AWW $366.33 Maximum $244.22 Minimum $ 81.41

EFFECTIVE JUNE 3, 1985

AWW $353.53 Maximum $235.69 Minimum $ 78.56

EFFECTIVE JUNE 15, 1984

AWW $347.45 Maximum $231.64 Minimum $ 77.22

EFFECTIVE JUNE 7, 1983

AWW $335.66 Maximum $223.78 Minimum $ 74.59

EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 1982

AWW $312.66 $208.45 Minimum $ 69.47

A routine annual adjustment to workers’ compensation rates goes into effect on July 1, 2025. These changes—as required by Alabama Code § 25‑5‑68—are based on statewide average weekly wage data as determined by the Alabama Department of Workforce.


  • Maximum weekly compensation rate: $1,172
  • Minimum weekly compensation rate: $322

 

These updated figures reflect increases of $42 and $11, respectively, from the previous rates of $1,130 and $311 set on July 1, 2024.

 

About the Author:

 

This article was prepared by Mike Fish, an attorney with Fish Nelson & Holden, LLC, a law firm dedicated to representing self-insured employers, insurance carriers and funds, and third-party administrators in all matters related to workers’ compensation. Fish Nelson & Holden is a member of the National Workers’ Compensation Defense Network. If you have any questions about this article or Alabama workers’ compensation in general, please contact Fish by e-mailing him at mfish@fishnelson.com or by calling him directly at 205-332-1448.

 

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

The legislature in the 2025 session attempted a “fix” of what many viewed as an incorrect decision from the Connecticut Supreme Court, Gardner v. Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, 351 Conn. 488 (March 18, 2025) (see below review of that decision). As a result of Gardner, the Administrative Law Judges were given discretion to award ongoing temporary partial benefits notwithstanding that the claimant may have achieved maximum medical improvement. This was viewed as a significant expansion of employers’ exposure for workers’ compensation benefits.

The 2025 legislation (Public Act 25-12) is designed to resolve the expansion of benefits brought by the Gardner decision and involved some give-and-take between those legislators who believed that certain benefits should be increased and those that did not want the Gardner decision to be applied. The legislation made the following changes:

·         For all claims from July 1, 1993 forward, a Judge shall be required to establish maximum medical improvement and place the claimant on permanency benefits if the claimant is receiving temporary partial benefits. If the claimant is totally disabled, he/she will be entitled to ongoing benefits for total disability notwithstanding the fact that he/she may have been placed at maximum medical improvement.

·         For claims on and after July 1, 2025, C.G.S. § 31-308(b) will be expanded to allow for permanency of the esophagus (180 weeks) and the intestinal tract (347 weeks). Additionally, the permanency benefits for the cervical spine shall be increased from 117 weeks to 208 weeks.

·         For any death claim where there is no presumptive dependent or dependent in fact, the parents of the decedent employee shall be entitled to receive benefits for 312 weeks.

·         C.G.S. § 31-308a was amended to allow for a supplemental 60 weeks of post-specific benefits, inclusive of any benefits awarded pursuant to § 31-308a(a). To qualify for benefits under this provision, the claimant must be unable to perform his/her usual work and either be actively engaged in a vocational rehabilitation service or equivalent program, or have completed this service or program.

·         A working group will be established “to study rehabilitation services available” to employees with work injuries.  The working group will review whether rehabilitation services are adequately funded and will consider incentives, including stipends, to encourage the utilization of rehabilitation services.

The only retroactive application of the statute deals with the Gardner decision and essentially states that for all claims from July 1, 1993 to the present time a Judge must award permanent partial disability benefits if maximum medical improvement has been reached and the claimant is capable of work. We have some question as to whether this retroactive legislation will stand up to judicial review. In Connecticut, normally the “date of injury” rule will apply, which means that the version of the statute in effect as of the date of injury controls what the rights and liabilities of the parties are. This retroactive legislation is counter to that rule. Moreover, there is question as to whether the retroactive application of this substantive change to the statute will pass constitutional muster under both the state and federal constitutions.

The permanency for the esophagus and intestinal track probably will not affect many claims. On the other hand, the increase of permanency for the neck will provide enhanced benefits to many injured employees. The increase in permanency for the neck seems to make sense when compared to the number of weeks that are allowed for permanency to the lumbar spine (374 weeks).

The expansion of death benefits to parents of a deceased employee was brought about by the recent death of a young State of Connecticut employee who was struck by a drunk driver while he was working on a road crew. No workers’ compensation benefits were paid since the young worker was not married. Many found this result to be unfair and therefore sought this legislative change.

The increase of § 31-308a benefits to 60 weeks may provide a substantial increase to  injured workers who are not able to return to their normal jobs and/or who have been assessed low permanency ratings. It will also likely increase the number of individuals who will be willing to participate in the state’s vocational retraining program. The legislation as passed is vague as to whether there are 60 weeks of benefits for each body part that is injured or whether 60 is the total number of supplemental weeks regardless of the number of body parts involved. We expect claimants’ counsel will attempt to seek supplemental awards of 60 weeks for each body part that is injured.

We interpret the statutory changes to § 31-308a to allow the employer to take credit for any prior § 31-308a benefits previously paid.  For example, if the claimant had been paid a permanency award of 10% of the lumbar spine and received 37.4 weeks of § 31-308a benefits then the net additional benefits that could be claimed amount to 22.6 weeks (60 supplemental weeks minus the 37.4 weeks previously paid). If this interpretation is correct then the claimants who have received a lower number of weeks of § 31-308a previously will benefit more from this new legislation; for example, a claimant who received a 5% of the leg and equivalent § 31-308a benefits for 7.75 weeks might be able to receive an additional 52.25 weeks.

Should you have any questions regarding this new legislation, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

CONNECTICUT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION NEWS

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE NEWS

 

 

Administrative Law Judges Colette Griffin, Christine Conley and Michael Anderson have all  been sworn in and have begun presiding over cases.

 

 

Former Administrative Law Judge Scott Barton has started a mediation company called ComProMise Mediation Services.  You can reach him for mediation services at 203-910-5137 or email at compromisems@gmail.com

 

 

 

MEMORANDUM 2024-07

 

Memorandum 2024-07 has been issued by Chief Administrative Law Judge Morelli regarding maximum compensation rates.  The Chairman has ordered that the maximum total disability rate for injuries occurring after October 1, 2024 is $1,654.00 (based on the estimated average weekly wage of all employees in Connecticut).  The maximum temporary partial/permanent partial disability rate for accidents after October 1, 2024 is  $1,191.00 (based on the average weekly earnings of production and related workers in manufacturing in Connecticut).

 

BURIAL EXPENSES

As of January 1, 2025, the burial fee for deaths covered under the Workers’ Compensation Act is $14,371.23 based on the overall 2024 CPI-W increase for the northeast of 3.5%. Connecticut General Statutes Section 31-306 was amended in 2021 to reflect that the compensation for burial benefits will be adjusted by the percentage increase in the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers in the Northeast as defined in the United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor

Statistics.

 

MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT

As of January 1, 2025 the mileage reimbursement rate is 70 cents per mile.

Previously on January 1, 2024, the mileage reimbursement rate was 67 cents per mile, on January 1, 2023 the mileage rate had been 65.5 cents per mile and as of July 1, 2002  the rate had been at 62.5 cents per mile.

 

 MEMORANDUM 2024-05

The Chairman has issued the following new memo which stated that physicians can charge for causation or permanency opinions in a denied case:

Effective July 1, 2024, a treating physician who is asked to provide a causation opinion or a Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) rating on a denied claim may charge up to $400 for this report.  The report must be affirmatively requested by the patient or their representative, and the patient would be responsible for payment. As with standard special report fees, if a physician feels that an additional fee is warranted, they may seek permission to charge that higher rate from an administrative law judge. However, physicians considering requesting additional fees should keep in mind that the patient bears the responsibility for payment and should proceed accordingly.

The Professional Guide for Attorneys, Physicians, and Other Health Care Practitioners and the Payor and Medical Provider Guidelines to Improve the Coordination of Medical Services will be updated to reflect this change. 

 

MEMORANDUM 2024-04

Effective June 14, 2024, the following changes have been made to WCC forms:

·         Form 30C has been updated with “Check, if Firefighter Cancer Claim pursuant to C.G.S. Chapter 568” and “Check, if Firefighter Cancer Claim pursuant to C.G.S. Section 7-313p” to help WCC better track Firefighter Cancer claims pursuant to Public Act No. 22-139. Language on Post Traumatic Stress Injuries has also been updated to reflect such injuries are pursuant to C.G.S. Section 31-294k. 

·         Form 30D has been updated with “Check, if Firefighter Cancer Claim pursuant to C.G.S. Chapter 568” and “Check, if Firefighter Cancer Claim pursuant to C.G.S. Section 7-313p” to help WCC better track Firefighter Cancer claims pursuant to Public Act No. 22-139.

·         The Hearing Request Form has been updated to allow the option for an email address to be added under the Injured Worker section.

·         Voluntary Agreement Form has been updated with “Check, if C.G.S. Sec. 5-142”to help WCC better identify wage calculations which are pursuant to C.G.S. Sec. 5-142.

·         WCR-1: Rehabilitation Request Form has been updated with options to either fax or email the form to Rehabilitation Services in addition to mailing or submitting the form in-person. An optional line has also been added for applicants to add their email address.

Effective June 14, 2024, the following form is now available:

·         Indemnity Only Stipulation and What it Means. 

 

MEMORANDUM 2024-03

Effective July 1, 2024, wage statements should be attached to all Voluntary Agreements. If the claimant is concurrently employed, wage statements from all employers should be included with the submission. Failure to attach a wage statement(s) will result in the rejection of the Voluntary Agreement.

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PORTAL

 

The Commission does have a website where you can look up such information as to whether a hearing is assigned, list of all claims for an employee, status of a Form 36, and interested parties.  This is quite a useful site and is a different website than the Commission’s main site.  It can be found at:

 

http://stg-pars.wcc.ct.gov/Default.aspx

 

 NEW COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD PANEL

 

The new CRB panel beginning January 1, 2025 will be Administrative law Judges Peter C. Mlynarczyk and Daniel E. Dilzer along with Chief Administrative Law Judge Morelli.

 

 CASE LAW

 

 QUINN v. PIERCE BUILDERS, INC., 6539 CRB-1-24-4 (APRIL 25, 2025)

 

The claimant in this case, who detailed vehicles and equipment for a living, alleged that on the date of injury he was an employee of the respondent, a construction company, and sustained a left ankle/foot injury in the course and scope of his employment.  The respondents contested the claim arguing that the claimant was an independent contractor and there was no employee-employer relationship and also that the injury occurred on a different date at the claimant’s home while he was cleaning his front yard from a tropical storm.  During the formal hearings, the claimant sought to introduce a recording of a partial phone call he had made without the knowledge and consent of the other party on the call.  The respondents objected pursuant to C.G.S. sections 52-570d and 52-184a, but the administrative law judge entered the recording into evidence.  The judge issued an April 2, 2024 Finding and Award concluding that the claimant was an employee, was not an independent contractor, and that he sustained his left ankle injury during the course and scope of his employment on August 4, 2020.  The respondents filed a Motion to Correct, which was denied, and appealed the decision to the Compensation Review Board.  On appeal, the respondents argued that the weight of the evidence can only support a finding that the claimant was an independent contractor, that the objective evidence showed that the claimant’s injury occurred on a different date at his home performing a non-work related task, and that the judge improperly allowed into evidence an illegally recorded audio recording.  In its decision, the CRB stated that they were not persuaded that the judge applied the appropriate test to determine whether an employer-employee relationship existed consistent with Hanson v. Transportation General, Inc., 245 Conn. 613 (1998), which requires the judge to consider the totality of the evidence and factors when using the “right to control” test.  The CRB took issue with the fact that the Judge made no reference in his decision to the evidence and documentation submitted by the respondents, including 1099s, business invoices, expense business invoices, tax returns filed as a self-employed sole proprietor, and information that the claimant hired an employee to assist him, and questioned whether that evidence was included in the judge’s analysis.  The CRB found that the lack of analysis rose to a level to find the trier failed to consider relevant factors and remanded the case for a new trial before a new judge, as the prior judge is no longer a workers’ compensation administrative law judge.  The CRB also found that the recording of the partial phone call should not have been allowed into evidence given the statutes that bar use of such evidence and ordered that it be stricken from the record.  Attorney Maribeth McGloin of SDAZ is defending this case.

 

DODGE v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT/DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, 6538 CRB-8-24-4 (May  2, 2025)

 

The claimant died due to diagnosis of mesothelioma which resulted from asbestos exposure  in his employment.  The Administrative Law Judge found the case compensable.  The widow was determined to be entitled to dependency benefits under Section 31-306 but the Judge allowed a credit/moratorium as a result of third party recoveries.  The widow argued that the moratorium should be based solely on recoveries due to occupational exposure to asbestos and not non-occupational exposures.  The Judge and CRB disagreed and awarded the respondents the full moratorium for third party recoveries due to asbestos exposure regardless if the exposure was occupational or non-occupational.

 

SHAWNA ZITO-HANNAN, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF MICHAEL HANNAN V. ELECTRIC BOAT, 6537 CRB-2-24-3 (May 20, 2025)

This claim for death benefits was dismissed by the trial Judge and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the CRB.  The claimant widow alleged that her husband’s cardiac event that led to his death at home was due to physical and emotional stress on the job.  The decedent was a design technician for the employer and would travel frequently to Cape Canaveral, Florida to work.  While in Florida he would work six days per week; he would travel to Florida for two weeks and then come back to Connecticut for one week.  After a trip to Florida he returned to Connecticut and the following day he died in his sleep at home.  The cause of death was listed as hypertensive heart disease, hyperlipidemia, tobacco use and thoracic aortic aneurysm.  There were conflicting expert opinions regarding the cause of death.  The trial Judge concluded that work-induced stress was not a substantial factor in leading to the heart disease and death. The Board found that the ALJ had applied the law correctly and they would not disturb his factual findings dismissing the case.

 

FIORAVANTI V. NCR CORPORATION, 6545 CRB-5-24-6 (May 27, 2025)

The injured employee hurt his knee at work on February 7, 2005.  He was paid  a permanency award of 7.5% with a mmi date in 2013.  Subsequently, in March 2019 the claimant had an authorized total knee replacement. The employee was scheduled to be seen by the treating surgeon for the knee in March 2020 but the exam was cancelled because of the Covid pandemic.  Instead, the patient completed an online survey regarding the surgery and his recovery.  The treator at that time did not establish mmi and gave no rating.  The employee died in October 2020 unexpectedly and for unrelated causes.  In February 2021 the treating surgeon completed a Form 42 and listed the impairment of the leg at 40%; he did not provide a date of mmi on the Form 42. At a later deposition the treating doctor agreed that the rating was speculative because it was based on the limited records before death and not an actual physical examination.   The Administrative law Judge dismissed the claim because he found mmi had not been established before the death and the rating was speculative.  No motion to correct was filed but an appeal was taken to the CRB.  The Board affirmed the dismissal finding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the dismissal of the claim for the posthumous permanency award.

 

GARDNER V. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES,         Conn.     (March 18, 2025)

The claimant sustained a compensable left hand injury on April 19, 2016. She underwent two surgeries to the hand. Dr. Ashmead, the treating physician, rendered an opinion on March 11, 2020 that the claimant had attained maximum medical improvement within an 8 percent rating for the left wrist. Also, Dr. Ashmead indicated the claimant continued to have work limitations and could not lift greater than 20 pounds. The respondents, based on Dr. Ashmead’s report filed a Form 36 seeking to establish maximum medical improvement and begin permanency payments. Claimant’s counsel, however, objected to the Form 36 contending that the claimant was entitled to ongoing temporary partial benefits and that the trial judge could, in his discretion, order temporary partial benefits under the provisions of General Statutes Section 31–308(b). The trial judge noted the claim was “novel” but concluded that the claimant had achieved maximum: improvement and that the Form 36 should be approved for permanency benefits. On appeal, the compensation review board affirmed the ruling of the trial Judge that permanency benefits were owed and not ongoing temporary partial benefits.   The Appellate Court affirmed the CRB decision, however, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed that and concluded that a Judge has “the discretion to award a claimant, after he or she reaches maximum medical improvement, ongoing temporary partial benefits under Section 31-308(a) in lieu of permanent partial disability benefits under Section 31-308(b), up to the statutory maximum of 520 weeks.”

In our opinion, this is a significant decision which increases possible exposures for temporary partial benefits and, in general, increases the settlement value of many cases where the claimant cannot return to work in their usual position. The legislature has attempted to modify this decision with new legislation in the recent legislative session (see above discussion).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

2025 Kansas Legislature: The 2025 Kansas legislative session has now ended.  There were no significant changes to Kansas workers compensation statutes in 2025. The Kansas workers compensation pro-employer 2011 reform laws remain in place through the 2025 legislative session. The significant 2024 legislative changes (see below) which increased benefits to claimants have now had one year to play out, and while we do not have any significant Kansas appellate court decisions interpreting those 2024 changes, on the employer/carrier claim handling ground level for new injury claims occurring after July 1, 2024, employers are seeing increased compensation payouts, particularly for high wage earners.

 

2024 Key Statutory Changes Recap:

1. Increased Caps (previous caps in parentheses):

               a. Death benefit cap increases to $500,000 ($300,000).

                               i. Benefits can exceed death benefit cap for dependent children until the

                                 later of

                                             1. age 18.

                                             2. age 19 or graduation if still in high school at age 18; or

                                             3. until age 23 if in vocational school or college.

               b. Permanent Total Disability Cap increases to $400,000 ($155,000).

                               i. To be eligible to pursue permanent total disability benefits, an injured worker must prove the work accident                 resulted in at least a 10% permanent partial impairment to the body as a whole or, if the injured worker has                 preexisting impairment, the injured worker’s total permanent partial impairment to the whole body must be at                 least 15%.

                                             ii. The injured worker must still prove they are realistically and essentially unemployable as a result of the                                accident. 

               c. Permanent Partial Disability Cap increases to $225,000 ($130,000).

                              i. Injured worker must prove permanent partial impairment to the whole body from the work accident of at least                 7.5% or, if the injured worker has preexisting impairment, the injured worker’s combined permanent partial                 impairment to the whole body must be at least 10%.

                              ii. Work disability is still determined by the average of wage loss, and task loss, related to the work injury.

               d. If the work accident results in only permanent partial impairment, an injured worker’s recovery is capped at $100,000. ($75,000).

               e. Caps will remain fixed until July 1, 2027, at which time a cost-of-living adjustment will kick in to raise caps on a yearly basis. The annual percentage increase will be based on a 5-year average of the percentage increase in the State’s average weekly wage.

2. Preliminary Hearings:

               a. Injured workers shall provide records to opposing counsel at least 20 days before a preliminary hearing.  If records are not provided at least 20 days before the preliminary hearing, the court can grant additional time for the employer to provide evidence which may controvert the employee’s records.

 3. Future Medical:

               a. The authorized treating physician’s opinion as to the need for future medical is presumed determinative on the issue of                 whether future medical will be awarded in cases where there have been no invasive procedures. This presumption can                 only be overcome with clear and convincing evidence.  What constitutes “invasive” will be the subject of litigation.

               b. If the injured worker had invasive treatment as a result of the work injury, the authorized treater’s assessment that no future treatment will be needed is still presumed determinative of the issue. However, that presumption may be overcome if claimant proves it is more likely than not that future medical will be needed.

4. Court-ordered independent medical examinations (COIME):

               a. The Administrative Law Judge may only order one COIME without agreement of the parties.

                              i. If the ALJ does order a COIME, the COIME must be done prior to Prehearing Settlement Conference.

                              ii. In addition, the COIME may not be used for the purposes of a rating, permanent restrictions, or opinions on                 permanent total disability.

               b. Parties are still free to agree to a joint IME.

5. Post award medical and attorney fees:

               a. The only procedure allowed to pursue post award medical treatment will be under the provisions of KSA 44-510k. An injured worker may not pursue post-award medical benefits under preliminary hearing procedures of K.S.A. 44-534a.

               b. If post-award benefits sought are provided within 30 days after an application for post award medical is filed, no attorney fees should be awarded without showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the claimant attorney made significant legal effort.

6. Medical records:

               a. Upon receipt of notice from the Division of the setting of a Regular or Post-Award Hearing, the parties shall exchange medical reports including those by examining and treating health care providers. The exchange shall be at least 30 days before the hearing.

               b. The testimony of a treating or examining health care provider may be submitted into evidence without additional foundation by submission to the opposing side of a complete medical report that complies with procedural rules set forth in the statute.

               c. Upon receipt of a proposed complete medical report, a party has ten days to file a written objection to the offering party stating the grounds for the objection. The ALJ shall then conduct a hearing on the objections as to whether the proposal meets the requirements of a complete medical report.

7. Notice of injury:

               a. An injured worker must notify the employer of the accident within 30 days (was 20 days) from date of accident or 20 days (was 10 days) from last date of employment, whichever is earlier.

8. Stipulated awards:

               a. If the employee is represented by counsel, a settlement can be completed without the need for a settlement hearing. The Division created the appropriate stipulations and Award documentation. The Administrative law judge is given five days from receipt of the signed stipulation to approve the agreed award or settlement.  Note however, there are significant employer/carrier advantages to formalizing the settlement before a Special Settlement Judge.

9. Social security offset:

               a. An award of permanent partial or permanent total disability shall be subject to an offset equal to 50% of the claimant’s Social Security retirement benefits.

               b. An award of TTD and TPD benefits shall not be subject to an offset for Social Security Retirement benefits.

10. Average Weekly Wage Computation:

               a. The calculation of average weekly wage shall include vacation, sick leave and PTO paid during 26 weeks before accident.

               b. In addition, the average weekly wage calculation eliminates the first week of wages from

               calculations if the employee did not work a full week.

11. Unauthorized Medical Allowance:

               a. The allowance per case for unauthorized medical is raised to $800 (was $500).

12. Per Diem for medical trips:

               a. If an employee is required to be away from home all day to obtain medical treatment, the employer shall pay the employee a $30 (was $15) per diem.

               b. The employer shall be responsible for reimbursement of the reasonable expenses of overnight accommodation as needed to avoid undue hardship on the employee.  This is a completely new benefit that did not exist in previous law.

13. Transcription of Hearing:

               a. The Director may order hearings to be recorded by digital recording or other means and later transcribed by a certified shorthand reporter or notary public who shall attest to the transcription’s accuracy.

14. 2024 Rates Update (2025 rates come out after July 1, 2025):

               a.  The maximum weekly indemnity benefit rate increased to $835.00, effective for injuries occurring 7/1/2024 through 6/30/2025, based upon annual indexing to the state average weekly wage.  Likewise for the same period, the minimum weekly survivor benefit rate for fatalities increased to $556.71.  Effective for medical travel after July 1, 2024, the medical mileage reimbursement rate increased from $.655 cents per mile to $.67 cents per mile.

About the Author: This update was prepared by National Workers’ Compensation Defense Network Kansas member Kim R. Martens of the Wichita, KS firm MARTENS WORK COMP LAW LLC, a law firm dedicated to representing self-insured employers, insurance carriers, and third-party administrators in all matters related to workers’ compensation before the Kansas Division of Workers’ Compensation and the Kansas appellate courts. If you have any questions about this submission or Kansas workers’ compensation in general, please contact Mr. Martens by either e-mailing him at Kim@MartensWorkCompLaw.com or by calling him directly at 316-461-0135.

After 16 years of dedicated service here at Bernard & Merrill, PLLC, we proudly announce the retirement of Margaret (Meg) Sack.

Meg graduated from Saint Michael’s College (B.A. 1982) and attended New England School of Law (J.D. 1987) where she graduated cum laude.

Since joining Bernard & Merrill, PLLC in 2009, Meg has been a driving force behind the firm’s success and client relationships. In 2018, Meg became a partner of the firm, continuing her dedication to workers compensation law. With a sharp legal mind and unwavering professionalism, she brought insight, integrity, and leadership to our practice and to the broader legal community.

Her contributions have shaped the culture and values of our firm, and her mentorship has left a lasting impact on colleagues and clients alike.

As Meg transitions into retirement, we extend our deepest gratitude for her years of dedication and excellence. While she will be greatly missed in the daily life of the firm, we look forward to continuing her dedication to workers’ compensation law, representing self-insured employers, third-party administrators and workers’ compensation insurance carriers. 

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has accepted certiorari in a case in which the Workers' Compensation Commission and the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) differ in the interpretation of the statute that governs the appointment of a new treating physician (Form A). The case is SSM Health Care Corp. v. Monica Goodwin, Supreme Court # 121,192.

 

The claimant suffered a compensable injury to several parts of her body when a patient suffered a psychotic episode and became combative. The employer admitted an injury to the neck and shoulder.  The ALJ ordered a change of physician to a shoulder specialist who does not treat necks and later granted a Form A to send the injured worker to a neck specialist. The employer objected and appealed. The appointment of an additional Form A doctor was affirmed by the WC Commission.

 

The issue is the interpretation of 85A O.S. Sec. 56(B). COCA, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the statute allows only one change of treating physician per case no matter how many parts of the body are injured.

 

The dissenting COCA judge wrote:

 

...."The Statute does not preclude the Commission from ordering more than one change of treating physician or otherwise limit how many changes may occur. Accordingly, I would find that Sec. 56(B) provides one change of treating physician at the claimant's request and that subsequent changes are allowed at the ALJ's discretion...."

   The dissenting opinion implies that allowing more one change of physician per case is reasonable, and does not violate legislative intent. 

 

The Supreme Court will decide the issue. 

 

 

Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Burial Benefit to Increase Effective July 1, 2025

LINCOLN, Neb. – Beginning July 1, 2025, the burial benefit under the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act will increase to $11,900.00. This benefit is provided in the event of an employee’s death resulting from personal injuries, as defined in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-151.

The burial benefit amount is reviewed and adjusted annually by the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court, as outlined in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-122(3).

A chart detailing current and past benefit rates—including those related to death benefits—is available on the court’s website: Benefit and Reimbursement Rates.

If you have questions about Nebraska Workers’ Compensation, please contact any of the lawyers at CPW by phone or email. Want to ensure you don’t miss out on the next post in the CPW compendium series? Be sure to subscribe to our newsletter.



UTAH

TRENDS

UTAH COURT OF APPELAS DECISION RE: LABOR COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO RESCIND PRIOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Waxies Enterprises, Inc. v. Halladay, 2025 UT App 7 (January 16, 2025)

After reaching a settlement of a claim made for injuries suffered while on the job, which the Labor Commission approved, the parties discovered they had different ideas about how to interpret one of the agreement’s material terms. The employer moved to have the Labor Commission either compel the employee to sign additional documents to implement its understanding of the agreement or set aside the prior approval of the agreement. The Labor Commission denied both requests. On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to compel but reversed the denial of the motion to set aside. With respect to the latter, the court reiterated prior precedent that the Labor Commission has continuing jurisdiction that encompasses the authority district courts have under Rule 60 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The court went on to hold the Labor Commission had the authority to rescind its prior approval of the settlement agreement once it was presented with a substantial question as to whether there had been a meeting of the minds on the material term at issue.  Because the appeals Board ruled that it lacked such authority, Utah Court of Appeals set aside that decision and instructed the labor Commission to revisit the issue.

 

 

© Copyright 2025 by Ford G. Scalley, Scalley Reading Bates Hansen & Rasmussen, P.C.

On April 24, 2025, Governor Kay Ivey signed the Mary Anne Leonard Educators' On-The-Job Injury Act into law. Prior to this new law, public education employees had no access to workers’ compensation benefits. If they did not purchase private disability insurance, then they did not get paid if a work injury prevented them from working. Although they could previously request reimbursement for medical bills, the new law provides for the direct payment of medical bills pursuant to a fee schedule. The following is a breakdown of the key components of the new Act and how it compares to the traditional Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act.


Who is Maryann Leonard? Maryann (according to her FB page, this is how she spells her name) was an Alabama educator who hit her head in a freak accident while at work. The resulting injury turned out to be serious enough to prevent her from returning to her job as a teacher. She did not have disability insurance and, like all other public teachers in the state, had no access to workers’ compensation benefits. Her story of hardship became a catalyst for change which is why the new legislation bears her name.


Before: No weekly compensation was available to public education employees when they were out of work due to job injuries. Although an employee could submit incurred medical expenses for reimbursement, the process could be slow and there was no guarantee that the expense would be fully reimbursed.


Now: An employee’s salary can continue for up to 90 days post-accident. In addition, medical bills can now be paid directly through the Public Education Employees Health Insurance Program.


Who is Covered? Education employees such as teachers, bus drivers and lunchroom workers.


Who is not Covered? Part-time, substitute, temporary, non-full-time employees and volunteers.


How will the Compensation Aspect be Funded? The recently passed $10 billion education budget carved out $15.6 million to fund the Public Education Employee Injury Compensation Trust Fund.


When? The program shall begin accepting on-the-job injury claims on an implementation date declared and published by the board in consultation with the Board of Adjustment but not later than October 1, 2026.


How is the New Act Different from the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act?

The Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act has been around for over 100 years. When you consider the number of provisions, amendments, and interpretive cases generated in that time frame, the new Act could only address a small percentage of what is included in the older and more expansive WC Act. The below short list represents the more notable provisions addressed by the new Act that are significantly different from the traditional WC Act.


Notice: An employee must give notice within 5 days of the injury. This is extended to 30 days where employee died or is not clinically able to report the claim without assistance. This is different than the 90 days available per the Ala. WC Act. In addition, the Ala. WC Act no longer requires written notice whereas the new Act specifies that the notice must be in writing.


Injury Reporting Form: Employee is required to sign the form. If employer refuses to complete and submit an injury report form after receiving timely notice, then it has to provide written findings of fact that support its decision.


Dispute Resolution: Any disputes between an employee and employer are referred to the Public Education Employee Injury Compensation Program Review Board. Disputes can also be adjudicated by an appointed hearing officer upon request of either party.


Appeals: Appeals of any Board or Hearing Officer decisions are made to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County as opposed to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.


Injury: It is not specifically defined as it is in the Ala. WC Act. Further, unlike the Ala. WC Act, there is no provision for the coverage of glasses or prosthetics that are damaged in an accident.


Temporary Indemnity: Instead of paying a percentage of the average weekly wage at the time of injury, the new law provides for full salary to be paid for up to 90 days. The door is also left open for the creation of a procedure to allow for additional paid weeks.


Occupational Disease: There is no mention of disease. This is most likely because Occ Disease statutes typically mandate that the disease be peculiar to the employment (i.e. black lung/coal industry). Since there are no diseases peculiar to education, it was probably intentionally left out.


Subrogation: Public Education Employees' Health Insurance Plan will pay medical bills subject to the applicable fee schedule and will retain subro rights against any responsible third party or the employee’s insurer that is responsible for the injury. Unlike the Ala. WC Act, there is no provision that the lien amount be reduced by a pro-rata share of the attorney fee (assuming an attorney was involved in the third party aspect).


Although the new Act is being referred to as workers’ compensation legislation it is not the traditional model that provides for unlimited weekly compensation benefits during a period of temporary disability nor does it provide for the payment of permanent partial or permanent total disability benefits once the period of temporary disability is concluded. As such, the compensation aspect of this new Act is more comparable to a private disability insurance policy with a finite number of available weeks.


As with any new legislation, how it will be implemented and enforced remains unclear. One thing is for sure, the Public Education Employee Injury Compensation Program Review Board, the appointed hearing officers, and the Montgomery County Circuit Court will be kept busy in the years to come.


About the Author:


This article was prepared by Mike Fish, an attorney with Fish Nelson & Holden, LLC, a law firm dedicated to representing self-insured employers, insurance carriers and funds, and third-party administrators in all matters related to workers’ compensation. Fish Nelson & Holden is a member of the National Workers’ Compensation Defense Network. If you have any questions about this article or Alabama workers’ compensation in general, please contact Fish by e-mailing him at mfish@fishnelson.com or by calling him directly at 205-332-1448.