Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Workers Comp Settlements
Pennsylvania Workers Comp Lawyer Michael W. Cardamone settled cases totaling $350,000.00 the week of December 21, 2009.
For a free analysis of your case, call an experienced and dedicated PA Work Comp Lawyer at 215.206.9068.
www.MyPhillyWorkersComp.com
For a free analysis of your case, call an experienced and dedicated PA Work Comp Lawyer at 215.206.9068.
www.MyPhillyWorkersComp.com
Monday, December 7, 2009
Cardamone Defeats Termination Petition
Michael W. Cardamone of Krasno Krasno & Onwudinjo, has just defeated the State of Pennsylvania in a case involving a claim that his client had fully recovered from his work-related neck injury.
Cardamone took the deposition of Claimant's treating physician, and presented his client for testimony, in an effort to establish that his client had not in fact recovered as the hired insurance company physician had alleged.
When you are facing a Petition to Terminate your benefits under the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, call Michael Cardamone for representation at 215-206-9068 or email him at mcardamone@krasno.com
www.MyPhillyWorkersComp.com
Cardamone took the deposition of Claimant's treating physician, and presented his client for testimony, in an effort to establish that his client had not in fact recovered as the hired insurance company physician had alleged.
When you are facing a Petition to Terminate your benefits under the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, call Michael Cardamone for representation at 215-206-9068 or email him at mcardamone@krasno.com
www.MyPhillyWorkersComp.com
Friday, December 4, 2009
Experienced Philadelphia Lawyer and RSD
I have significant experience handling claims for people suffering from RSD. RSD- reflex sympathetic dystrophy is a chronic and painful condition marked, in part, by burning pain, excessive sweating, swelling, and sensitivity to touch. It is also called Complex Regional Pain Syndrome.
RSD can spread to different body parts. It can last a lifetime. Some people will improve and recover but many will not.
Doctors often disagree about many facets of RSD. However, it is a real condition with debilitating effects.
When you need a lawyer with RSD experience and knowledge, call Michael Cardamone at 215.206.9068. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
http://www.myphillyworkerscomp.com/
RSD can spread to different body parts. It can last a lifetime. Some people will improve and recover but many will not.
Doctors often disagree about many facets of RSD. However, it is a real condition with debilitating effects.
When you need a lawyer with RSD experience and knowledge, call Michael Cardamone at 215.206.9068. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
http://www.myphillyworkerscomp.com/
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Cardamone Successfully Defends Termination Petition On Behalf Of Injured Worker
Michael W. Cardamone, Esquire has successfully defended a Petition to Terminate benefits on behalf of his client. The insurer argued that Cardamone's client had fully recovered pursuant to an Independent Medical Examination. However, Cardamone deposed Claimant's treating physician, who opined that Claimant was not fully recovered. Cardamone also presented the testimony of Claimant. Thousands of dollars was spent in the litigation of this matter, with Cardamone prevailing. His client's benefits- including wage loss and medical, will continue.
If you need a consultation, please call PA Workmans Comp Lawyer Michael W. Cardamone at 215.206.9068 or email mcardamone@krasno.com
www.MyPhillyWorkersComp.com
If you need a consultation, please call PA Workmans Comp Lawyer Michael W. Cardamone at 215.206.9068 or email mcardamone@krasno.com
www.MyPhillyWorkersComp.com
Friday, October 30, 2009
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Determines That Job Availability Pursuant to a Labor Market Survey Must Be Focused on Where Injury Occurred
In Riddle v. WCAB, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has determined that when an employer pursues a Labor Market Survey under the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, for non-residents, it "must focus its job availability analysis on the area where the injury occurred...." The Court found that the General Assembly defined the method for evaluating "earning power" in unequivocal language that identifies the area where the injury occurred as the relevant location for non-residents. 77 P.S., sec 512 (2).
The Claimant, Harry Riddle, is a West Virginia resident formerly employed as an electrician by Allegheny City Electric in Pittsburgh. He suffered a work-related injury described as right shoulder tendonitis in August 2000. The Employer, in March 2005, petitioned for a modification or suspension of his benefits based on a release to light duty work by his treating physician. The employer asserted that considering his age, skills, education, experience, and work availability in the relevant geographical area, that he had an earning power necessitating a reduction in his workers' comp indemnity.
The Labor Market Survey was completed for the Wheeling, West Virginia area where he resided at the time of the Survey- even though he was injured in Pennsylvania.
The Workers' Comp Judge granted the modification petition and reduced Riddle's benefits. On appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, the Board affirmed the reduction of benefits.
The Commonwealth Court then held that the employer was not precluded from obtaining a modification of benefits based on job availability in West Virginia, Ohio, or Pennsylvania because Appellant had a residence in West Virginia and stayed with his father in Ohio, where he also held a driver's license.
The Supreme Court noted that 77 P.S., sec 512 (2) describes the means by which the employer could satisfy its burden of proving earning power- in that earning power is a "function of the work the employee is 'capable of performing' and job availability 'in the usual employment area'". The employer, it noted, could carry its burden of proof by introducing expert testimony as to both elements. With respect to injured employees who do not live in Pennsylvania, "the usual employment area where the injury occurred shall apply".
The employer tried to argue that the statute merely requires that the area of injury- Pittsburgh, must be used as a starting point in developing an earning power assessment. It read the statute as permitting the employer to develop an EPA for additional areas with which Appellant (Riddle) had economic and vocational ties, such as parts of West Virginia and Ohio, in order to discover his "true" earning power. The employer did not want a strict reading of the statute, obviously, and wanted to adopts its own interpretation.
The Supreme Court rejected the employer's broad interpretation, finding the phrase "shall" as mandatory in its common usage as well as legal parlance. When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. 1 Pa.C.S., sec 1921.
Overall, I think the Supreme Court made the right decision. The words of the Act are clear.
If you have any questions as to how this case may apply to your situation, please call me directly at 215.206.9068 or email mcardamone@krasno.com
-Michael W. Cardamone- Fighting For Injured Workers In Pennsylvania
http://www.myphillyworkerscomp.com/
The Claimant, Harry Riddle, is a West Virginia resident formerly employed as an electrician by Allegheny City Electric in Pittsburgh. He suffered a work-related injury described as right shoulder tendonitis in August 2000. The Employer, in March 2005, petitioned for a modification or suspension of his benefits based on a release to light duty work by his treating physician. The employer asserted that considering his age, skills, education, experience, and work availability in the relevant geographical area, that he had an earning power necessitating a reduction in his workers' comp indemnity.
The Labor Market Survey was completed for the Wheeling, West Virginia area where he resided at the time of the Survey- even though he was injured in Pennsylvania.
The Workers' Comp Judge granted the modification petition and reduced Riddle's benefits. On appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, the Board affirmed the reduction of benefits.
The Commonwealth Court then held that the employer was not precluded from obtaining a modification of benefits based on job availability in West Virginia, Ohio, or Pennsylvania because Appellant had a residence in West Virginia and stayed with his father in Ohio, where he also held a driver's license.
The Supreme Court noted that 77 P.S., sec 512 (2) describes the means by which the employer could satisfy its burden of proving earning power- in that earning power is a "function of the work the employee is 'capable of performing' and job availability 'in the usual employment area'". The employer, it noted, could carry its burden of proof by introducing expert testimony as to both elements. With respect to injured employees who do not live in Pennsylvania, "the usual employment area where the injury occurred shall apply".
The employer tried to argue that the statute merely requires that the area of injury- Pittsburgh, must be used as a starting point in developing an earning power assessment. It read the statute as permitting the employer to develop an EPA for additional areas with which Appellant (Riddle) had economic and vocational ties, such as parts of West Virginia and Ohio, in order to discover his "true" earning power. The employer did not want a strict reading of the statute, obviously, and wanted to adopts its own interpretation.
The Supreme Court rejected the employer's broad interpretation, finding the phrase "shall" as mandatory in its common usage as well as legal parlance. When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. 1 Pa.C.S., sec 1921.
Overall, I think the Supreme Court made the right decision. The words of the Act are clear.
If you have any questions as to how this case may apply to your situation, please call me directly at 215.206.9068 or email mcardamone@krasno.com
-Michael W. Cardamone- Fighting For Injured Workers In Pennsylvania
http://www.myphillyworkerscomp.com/
Monday, October 12, 2009
The Claim Petition Process in Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Is Too Slow.
Having spent over a decade litigating Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation cases, I have to say that the system is quite fair overall. Both injured workers and employers/insurers have due process- the ability to be heard, the ability to present evidence, and to receive a "reasoned" decision from a Workers' Compensation Judge.
However, when an injured worker in Pennsylvania has her claim denied at the outset- that is, within 21 days from the date of notice, (at least, theoretically, as we practictioners know that many claims are not accepted or denied within the 21 day requirement), she must file a Claim Petition- even if the denial is unfounded or simply filed to avoid payment. The case then gets set for a series of hearings, a period of six months for medical depositions, and then several months for the written arguments and a decision from the presiding WCJ. This process often takes approximately 12 months. In the meantime, the injured worker is without her wage loss and medical benefits, and forced to live on unemployment compensation, or other available benefits such as short or long- term disability. Frequently, an injured worker whose claim has been denied, has to dip into their life -long savings, just to provide food and shelter for her family. Sometimes, the injured worker has no job to return to, as employers will eliminate the position, terminate the injured worker, or fail to provide work within the doctor's restrictions.
The effects of this long process are devastating to injured workers in Pennsylvania. Credit is irreperably damaged, savings are exhausted, houses are lost, and stress levels go through the roof- exacerbating the disability, and often causing additional mental problems such as anxiety and depression.
We could speed up this process by instituting a preliminary hearing- similar to our criminal law system, whereby an injured worker in Pennsylvania would have to present a "prima facie" case- perhaps within 30 days of the initial filing, demonstrating vis- a -vis testimony and medical reports, that a work injury and a commensurate disability has occurred. If proven, two thirds of the wage loss and medical benefits would commence, plus statutory interest. If denied, then the case proceeds onto the merits with depositions and full testimony from the relevant witnesses. If the prima facie case is met, the employers would still have the right to defend the case on the merits through the usual process. If the prima facie case is met, but then reversed in the final, written decision, the employers/insurers could seek reimbursement from the Supersedeas Fund.
This is just one idea for speeding up the Claim Petition process in Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation to avoid the cascading devastation caused by the 12 month waiting period when a claim is denied at the outset.
-Michael W. Cardamone
Fighting For Injured Workers In Pennsylvania
http://www.myphillyworkerscomp.com/
However, when an injured worker in Pennsylvania has her claim denied at the outset- that is, within 21 days from the date of notice, (at least, theoretically, as we practictioners know that many claims are not accepted or denied within the 21 day requirement), she must file a Claim Petition- even if the denial is unfounded or simply filed to avoid payment. The case then gets set for a series of hearings, a period of six months for medical depositions, and then several months for the written arguments and a decision from the presiding WCJ. This process often takes approximately 12 months. In the meantime, the injured worker is without her wage loss and medical benefits, and forced to live on unemployment compensation, or other available benefits such as short or long- term disability. Frequently, an injured worker whose claim has been denied, has to dip into their life -long savings, just to provide food and shelter for her family. Sometimes, the injured worker has no job to return to, as employers will eliminate the position, terminate the injured worker, or fail to provide work within the doctor's restrictions.
The effects of this long process are devastating to injured workers in Pennsylvania. Credit is irreperably damaged, savings are exhausted, houses are lost, and stress levels go through the roof- exacerbating the disability, and often causing additional mental problems such as anxiety and depression.
We could speed up this process by instituting a preliminary hearing- similar to our criminal law system, whereby an injured worker in Pennsylvania would have to present a "prima facie" case- perhaps within 30 days of the initial filing, demonstrating vis- a -vis testimony and medical reports, that a work injury and a commensurate disability has occurred. If proven, two thirds of the wage loss and medical benefits would commence, plus statutory interest. If denied, then the case proceeds onto the merits with depositions and full testimony from the relevant witnesses. If the prima facie case is met, the employers would still have the right to defend the case on the merits through the usual process. If the prima facie case is met, but then reversed in the final, written decision, the employers/insurers could seek reimbursement from the Supersedeas Fund.
This is just one idea for speeding up the Claim Petition process in Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation to avoid the cascading devastation caused by the 12 month waiting period when a claim is denied at the outset.
-Michael W. Cardamone
Fighting For Injured Workers In Pennsylvania
http://www.myphillyworkerscomp.com/
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
If I Worked Two Jobs, Does My Workers' Compensation Rate Account for Lost Income from Both Jobs?
Yes. This is called concurrent employment. Wages received from all concurrent separate employment are used to determine the Average Weekly Wage to calculate compensation payable by the liable employer. Act 12 of 1972 eliminated the requirement that the defendant-employer have knowledge of such concurrent employment prior to the incident.
Concurrent means "at the time" of the injury.
Note that the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits by virtue of a temporary layoff is not controlling as to a finding of concurrent employment. Instead, the focus is whether the employment relationship remains sufficiently intact such that the employee's past earning experience remains a valid predictor of future earnings loss.
Further, to calculate the injured workers' AWW with concurrent employment, the AWW of each position must be calculated separately and then added together.
For more information on this topic, email mcardamone@krasno.com or call Michael W. Cardamone directly at 215.206.9068.
http://www.myphillyworkerscomp.com/
Concurrent means "at the time" of the injury.
Note that the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits by virtue of a temporary layoff is not controlling as to a finding of concurrent employment. Instead, the focus is whether the employment relationship remains sufficiently intact such that the employee's past earning experience remains a valid predictor of future earnings loss.
Further, to calculate the injured workers' AWW with concurrent employment, the AWW of each position must be calculated separately and then added together.
For more information on this topic, email mcardamone@krasno.com or call Michael W. Cardamone directly at 215.206.9068.
http://www.myphillyworkerscomp.com/
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Will I Have To Resign If I Settle My Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Case?
In most cases, the employers do want a formal resignation which will say something along these lines, "Employee agrees to resign and not seek employment again with employer". The Workers' Compensation Judges, however, do not have jurisdiction over this issue, so the resignation is not submitted to the WCJ. But many employers require the resignation in exchange for the lump sum settlement in the Compromise & Release.
I tend to advise my clients to sign the resignation, if they agree that working for the employer down the road is not desirable. In most cases, an injured worker has accrued some ill will towards the employer (and insurer) as a result of many factors in the workers' comp proceedings- so they are normally not reluctant to sign the resignation. Both parties tend to agree that parting ways is a healthy thing.
For more information about this topic, email me at mcardamone@krasno.com or call 215.206.9068
www.MyPhillyWorkersComp.com
I tend to advise my clients to sign the resignation, if they agree that working for the employer down the road is not desirable. In most cases, an injured worker has accrued some ill will towards the employer (and insurer) as a result of many factors in the workers' comp proceedings- so they are normally not reluctant to sign the resignation. Both parties tend to agree that parting ways is a healthy thing.
For more information about this topic, email me at mcardamone@krasno.com or call 215.206.9068
www.MyPhillyWorkersComp.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
