You work at a job where you perform repetitive work with your hands.Maybe you are a secretary who does alot of typing.Maybe you are a forklift operator,or you are a scanner at a grocery store.Suddenly you begin to notice that your hands have been falling asleep and your grip seems weaker.At first you brush it off,but the symptoms keep getting worse.In time you cant get a good nights sleep because your hands keep you up.It reaches the point that you can no longer ignore it.You eventually see your family doctor who tells you that you have carpal tunnel syndrome.Your doctor asks you what you do for a living and you explain that your job requires you to perform alot of repetitive work with your hands.Your doctor tells you that your condition may be work related.Finally,you report this to your employer and their insurance company sends you to one of their “chosen doctors”.You go the appointment and you are told,”sorry”,but your condition is not related to your work.You are told that it is due to your “age” or it is because you are a “middle-aged woman”. Maybe you are told that it is because you are “overweight” or you are”diabetic”.You are given every reason in the world why your condition isnt work-related.In addition,you are asked about your smoking and drinking habits as well as questions about your hobbies and you are told that your hobbies are causing your condition.In your heart though,you know that your condition is related to your work.Does this sound familiar?..My advice is simple-dont believe them!Insurance companies have lists of doctors that they use to deny carpal tunnel claims.Everyday in my practice,I see these situations arise and we ultimately settle,or win these kinds of claims in court on a routine basis.An attorney will only charge a fee based on a successful result.So there is nothing to loose by contacting a workers compensation attorney to help you.Everyday workers walk away from good claims based on opinions from insurance company doctors who are rewarded handsomely for their opinions.Consequently,it is important to protect yourself by learning your rights. JEFF SWANEYCONTACT AT 314-481-7778

How can you choose the best injury attorney in St Louis for your case? First, it is important to understand that there are many different areas of practice.Some attorneys focus their practice on car accident cases.This generally involves alot of negotiations and frequent jury trials.Other attorneys focus on work comp cases and deal with trials in front of work comp judges.Other attorneys focus on Social Security disability claims.This involves hearings in front of social security judges and having a keen understanding of what is needed to document disability.There are also attorneys who focus on complex litigation involving medical malpractice cases and products liability claims.It is important when you contact an attorney to find out how much of his time is spent practicing in the area that you need.Experience is critical to the sucess of your claim.Second,it is important to find out if an attorney is going to personally handle your case,or whether he is going to hand you off to an inexperienced underling.Third,you need to determine if the attorney has a personality that is compatable with yours. It is definitely difficult to work with someone that you dont like.Finally,you need to determine whether the attorney enjoys a good reputation in the legal community.You want someone who is both competent and trustworthy.  JEFF SWANEY  Phone #314-481-7778

Discrimination because of exercising compensation rights prohibited –civil action for damages.

287.780. No employer or agent shall discharge or in any way discriminate against any employee for exercising any of his rights under this chapter. Any employee who has been discharged or discriminated against shall have a civil action for damages against his employer.

(RSMo 1939 § 3725, A.L. 1973 H.B. 79)

Prior revision: 1929 § 3335

(1979) Plaintiff who alleges discharge due to filing of a worker’s compensation claim has burden of proving the cause of action. Henderson v. St. Louis Housing Authority (Mo.), 605 S.W.2d 800.

(1993) The rights and remedies provided by this section are independent of, in addition to, any rights provided by a collective bargaining agreement. Claim for retaliatory discharge under statute is not preempted by federal labor law. Cook v. Hussmann Corp., 852 S.W.2d 342 (Mo. en banc).

(1998) Law does not abolish the “at-will” doctrine but provides a limited exception. Crabtree v. Bugby, 967 S.W.2d 66 (Mo.banc).
The Language in the law is quite clear that an employee cannot be fired for filing a legitimate work injury claim. An employer can fire an employee for just cause or for business reasons.If the real reason for firing an employee is for filing a work injury claim and other reasons are given to mask the true motive,then the firing would be illegal.There can be difficulties with proof ,but this a question which can be decided by a jury in a civil case.Make no mistake about it , however, that firing an injured employee for asserting a work injury claim is definitely contrary to the law and damages can be awarded against an employer for such conduct. SUBMITTED BY JEFF SWANEY 314-481-7778 

.

As a personal injury attorney, I would welcome comments from bikers.   JEFF SWANEY FREE CONSULTATION 314-481-7778 

Missouri could change motorcycle helmet law

The bill would allow those 21 and older to ride without helmets on all Missouri roads except interstate highways.

The House gave the bill final approval Wednesday on a vote of 93-65. It cleared the Senate earlier.

Proposals to repeal the mandatory helmet law have been controversial in the past. But this year’s measure, to simply modify the law, received little debate in either chamber.

Supporters of Missouri’s existing helmet law say the protective headgear keeps motorcyclists safer during a potentially dangerous activity.

But some motorcycle enthusiasts contend it’s more fun to ride without a helmet. They’ve argued that the state should micromanage their lives.

Article cited to keep up with GM bankruptcy and its affect on workers compensation claims. JEFF SWANEY FREE CONSULTATION 314-481-7778
(June 1, 2009 – Madison, WI) Self insurance directors had a jolting start to their work week as headlines of General Motors bankruptcy petition filled the news yesterday. The so called “first day motion” to the court included a petition to continue wages and benefits to GM’s workforce. As part of this motion, General Motors’ management took the position that payment for all workers’ compensation benefits, whether for future or past claims, was in the best interest of preserving the commitment of its labor force. Thus, the petition calls for the payment of all workers’ compensation benefits for any of its past or present employees, administrative expenses, and any workers compensation insurance premiums due, with exceptions for certain states, as noted below.

The petition before the court includes workers’ compensation liabilities for active plants and operations, as well as incurred claims for ongoing workers’ compensation benefits in many jurisdictions where operations have ceased. According to the petition, the magnitude of past claims is enormous:

As of the Commencement Date approximately 12,500 workers’ compensation claims were pending against the Debtors. The Debtors estimate that the aggregate amount payable on account of incurred but not yet paid claims and IBNR claims arising prior to the Commencement Date is approximately $1.47 billion. Of course, not all of this amount is immediately due, but rather would be payable throughout the succeeding months and even years. The Debtors estimate that cash payments for the next 12 months related to prepetition workers’ compensation claims will be approximately $240 million.

The formal request to honor these past payments is stated as follows:

A GM official commented that Alabama, Georgia, New Jersey, and Oklahoma were omitted because they have no current GM operations. However, Greg Krohm, Executive Director of the IAIABC notes, “Even if collateral or surety coverage is sufficient to pay all future claims, there is likely going to be at least a few weeks delay in initiating payments in these four states. Moreover, the adequacy of security at ultimate payout is not guaranteed.”

How quickly the court will respond to the petition is unclear. If the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York rules that evidentiary filings and hearings are called for, turning claims over to sureties or third party administrators will inevitably result in some interruptions in benefit payments. The company rationale to the court for priority preference for these claims is:

“If unopposed, this first day petition is likely to be granted. However, if creditors object the matter may be reopened,” according to Robert Aurbach, Principle, Uncommon Approach.

Chrysler sale   An interesting article regarding Chrysler’s workers compensation concrens. JEFF SWANEY FREE CONSULTATION 314-481-7778

This is an interesting case which states that Social Security Judges cannot act as doctors in denying a social security claim.
FREE CONSULTATION 314-481-7778

Social Security: Denial Of Benefits – Mental Disability – Medical Noncompliance

Pate-Fires v. Astrue (MLW No. 59069/Case No. 07-3561 – 22 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Bye, J.)

Where an administrative law judge denied the application for disability benefits and supplemental security income of a claimant with mental impairments based on his determination that she could perform her past relevant work as a retail store stocker, the medical evidence proved that the claimant suffered from a severe mental impairment and could not engage in gainful employment, and the ALJ’s contrary conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence because the claimant’s treating doctor found her to be disabled and the ALJ improperly disregarded the doctor’s opinion based on his own conclusion that the claimant’s drug use and refusal to take her medicine precluded a finding of disability.
Judgment is reversed and remanded.

‘Playing doctor’

“The ALJ’s conclusion Pate-Fires’s medical noncompliance was not justifiable and precludes a finding of disability is not supported by substantial evidence. Further, the ALJ’s determination Pate-Fires’s medical noncompliance is attributable solely to free will is tantamount to the ALJ ‘playing doctor,’ a practice forbidden by law.”

Improper basis

Dissenting opinion by Shepherd, J.: “I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that remand for an immediate award of benefits is the appropriate remedy in this case. At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ decided that Pate-Fires retained the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work ‘The majority finds that the ALJ reached this step-four conclusion in error. Specifically, the ALJ relied on an improper basis to reject Dr. Erby’s opinion, and substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s conclusion that Pate-Fires’s medical noncompliance precluded a finding of disability’ To the extent the majority’s decision to reverse the judgment of the district court is based on these errors in the ALJ’s step-four analysis, I concur.”

Judgment is reversed and remanded.
y claim.

This is an interesting article on facet syndrome  which can be associated with whiplash injuries.