St. Louis Workers Compensation Attorney Explains How Work Comp Law Now Targets Older Workers

May 25th, 2009

When the  Missouri Legislature passed “Work Comp” reform in 2005 the goal was to payback insurance companies and business groups for their support. The winner always gets the spoils, but this time fairness and common sense had to take a far back seat to expediency. Older workers were punished -for aging!!  Section 190, subsection 3 states that “Any award of compensation shall be reduced by an amount proportional to the permanent partial disability determined to be a preexisting disease or condition or attributed to the natural process of aging sufficient to cause or prolong the disability or need of treatment. Reduced by “the natural process of aging!” Believe it or not,the intent of the legislature was to punish workers for the natural aging process.

When do we punish people for aging? From the age of 35? What about 20? Why doesn’t a worker get a bonus for healing faster, if he is young? Every middle aged worker is going to have some arthritis, or may have diabetes or some frailness as time goes on. Now the older worker is to be penalized if his “natural aging” prolongs his disability or treatment. So if you don’t bounce back at 50 the way you did when you were 25 because your body has become more frail, then the insurance company should be able to make you pay for your own treatment and at the same time cut off your lost time benefits. Where’s the outrage from groups life AARP and other advocates for older citizens? Too bad we can’t reduce the pay of Missouri legislators as they get older! Nevermind, they always stand up for themselves when it comes to their own pay raises and retirement benefits, but there is no common sense when it comes to injured workers.

ST. LOUIS FAIR DEBT COLLECTION (FDCPA) ATTORNEY THINKS CONSUMERS SHOULD BE TREATED FAIRLY, TOO

May 22nd, 2009

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was passed by Congress in 1977 to protect consumers from the abusive and unscrupulous tactics employed by debt collectors and collection agencies in their efforts to collect debts. Its primary purpose was to protect those consumers who had experienced difficulty and fallen behind on their debts from these abusive practices and to make sure that those consumers were treated with respect, dignity and honesty by these agencies. This well-written column by Michelle Singletary of the Washington Post provides an excellent insight on how the process should work. Unfortunately, for most consumers, the behavior suggested by Ms. Singletary is usually lacking when it comes to debt collectors and collection agencies.

Feel free to contact Bob Healey for more information and a free consultation at (314) 481-7778 or at his email address rhealey@swaneylawfirm.com

Collect debt, the right way

By Michelle Singletary

Washington Post Writers Group

Sunday, May 10, 2009

WASHINGTON — Whenever people ask me what they should do about their debts, I encourage them to call their creditors and do what they can to make good on their promise to pay. Morally, that’s the right thing to do.

I also believe debt collectors have a moral obligation to treat debtors honorably and with respect. Just because someone is a debtor doesn’t mean he or she is a deadbeat. However, there is enough evidence that far too many debtors are treated abusively by debt collectors.

To address this problem, the Federal Trade Commission is recommending essential changes to how companies collect past-due obligations. Since 2007, the FTC has been evaluating whether there is a need to change the debt collection system, including updating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which was enacted to protect consumers from abusive, unfair and deceptive practices by debt collectors.

In its annual report to Congress about the fair debt collection law, the FTC said that it had received more than 78,000 complaints last year from consumers about debt collectors. The agency received, by far, more complaints about debt collectors than any other industry. After evaluating these complaints, the FTC put together a report released this year outlining proposed changes to address primarily two areas.

First, the agency wants to change the law to improve the information that debt collectors use to hunt down debtors. Second, the FTC wants the law updated to reflect the way creditors contact consumers.

To improve the information creditors use to collect debts, the agency is recommending the following:

  1. Require that when debt collectors contact consumers, they disclose the name of the original creditor and a breakdown of the debt owed, including the original principal, total interest and total fees.

I can’t believe this isn’t part of the law already. Turns out debt collectors often have inadequate information because the right to collect a debt can be sold and then resold. “This increases the likelihood that collectors will reach the incorrect consumer, try to collect the wrong amount, or both,” the FTC said in its report, “Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change.”

Under current law, if a consumer disputes a debt, the collector is required to verify what is owed before pursuing further collection efforts. However, “many collectors currently do little more to verify debts than confirm that their information accurately reflects what they received from the creditor,” the FTC says.

  1. Require collectors to conduct “reasonable” investigations when consumers dispute debt information.

I certainly hope if this change is adopted, the FTC specifies what “reasonable” actually entails. Does it mean one call to the original creditor? Or does it mean digging for documents to prove what a debtor owes? Without clarity, this rule change would have little meaning.

  1. Require debt collectors to inform consumers that if they send a timely written dispute or request for verification of their debt, the collector must suspend collection efforts until it has provided the verification in writing. Collectors would also be required to tell consumers that if they request in writing the debt collector cease contacting them, the collector must comply.

Tech changes

In the area of technology, the FTC has recommended the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act be changed in the following ways:

  1. Debt collectors should be allowed to use all communication technologies, including mobile telephones and text messages, to contact consumers.

The agency said the law should be carefully crafted to avoid collectors using certain forms of communication in a way that causes consumers to incur charges, or otherwise subjects consumers to unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices. “Consumers should not have to pay to be contacted by a debt collector,” the FTC says. The solution: The law would generally prohibit debt collectors from contacting consumers via cell phones unless they have obtained express prior consent for such contacts.

I see all kinds of problems with this change on contact rules, especially at the time when consumers apply for credit. So to be sure the permission is granted with the consumer’s full knowledge, creditors should not be allowed to put this information into the fine print of debt agreements. It should be done in a separate agreement dealing with the contact information only.

Michelle Singletary is a financial columnist for The Washington Post. Write her at Michelle Singletary, Buyer’s Edge, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 72 Marietta St. N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 or e-mail buyersedge@ajc.com and put “comment for Michelle” in the subject line.

St. louis lawyer Posting Article on facet Syndrome

May 22nd, 2009

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

Steven C. Ludwig, M.D., Chief of Spine Surgery, University of Maryland Medical Center
January 4, 2008

Question: What Is Facet Syndrome?

Answer: Facet syndrome is a condition in which the joints in the back of the spine degenerate and subsequently cause pain.

The facet joints are found at every level on both sides of the lumbar spine. They provide about 20 percent of the twisting stability in the low back. Each facet joint is positioned at each level of the spine to provide the needed support especially with rotation.

Facet joints also prevent each vertebra from slipping over the one below. A small capsule surrounds each facet joint providing a nourishing lubricant for the joint.

Also, each joint has a rich supply of tiny nerve fibers that provide a painful stimulus when the joint is injured or irritated. Inflamed facets can cause a powerful muscle spasm.

Firefighters in St. Louis Should Be aware Of Maines Actions Regarding Cancer Claims

May 20th, 2009

System benefits to firefighters who contract cancer.  The bill presumes that a firefighter’s exposure to smoke or fumes from suspected burning carcinogens is a causal factor in the development of a wide variety of cancers. It would be up to a municipality or state Workers Comp board to disprove the claim, and that’s a change that opponents say will increase insurance costs for Maine municipalities.

It’s not that state Rep. Cynthia Dill disapproves of firefighters, or the work they do. “Let the record be clear, I love firefighters,” she says.  But the Cape Elizabeth Democrat is not enthusiastic about a bill that has drawn off-duty Maine firemen to the halls of the State House to personally lobby for its passage.

LD 621 would change Maine’s Workers Compensation laws to presume that a firefighter who develops cancer did so as the result of exposure to smoke or fumes from burning materials suspected of being carcinogens. It would be up to a municipality to disprove the claim along with the burden of paying additional insurance costs.

Dill says that’s an easy buck to pass for the Legislature. “If this bill were a study, we wouldn’t pass it, because we in the Legislature don’t have the money.  Instead, this is the bill that transfers the cost of an expansion of benefits from the health insurance providers to our towns.”

Nearly 30 states have adopted the law modeled after legislation that was passed in California. Ron Green, a Bangor firefighter, says that the provision hasn’t produced the kinds of new costs that concern Dill and other opponents. “What’s important to point out is that 29 other states have passed this into legislation, some have had it in law as many as 20 years,” Green says.  “None of these states have shown a significant increase to their workers compensation systems.  California, who is the biggest employer of firefighters in the country, it had such minimal impact to their compensation system that they didn’t even do an actuarial study on this.”

“The debate to me was not about cancer, the debate was about who was going to be responsible for paying for this issue,” says State Rep. Andre Cushing, a Hampden Republican.  Cushing has problems with the bill because it fails to draw distinctions between genetically-linked cancers and those that could be contracted through employment. Under the bill, a firefighter with five years of employment would be able to file a claim if he or she contracted cancer within 10 years of their last active employment or prior to 70 years of age.

“What is the threshold for people participating?” Cushing says.  “Did they indeed contract cancer that was related to the job or did they have a genetic predisposition in their family and now we’re covering issues that weren’t directly related to the job?”

As a workers comp lawyer for more than 30 years, state Rep. Thomas Watson has studied his share of labor law. The Bath Democrat, who supports the bill, says firefighters now have a tough time making job-related cancer claims. “If a firefighter comes to me now and says ‘I have prostate cancer, I fought fires for ten years and my doctor says it might be connected,’ I have to say in good faith, unless you’ve got a lot more, I probably won’t be able to take that case.”

Watson points out that the bill requires firefighters to declare any family cancer histories or non-firefighting activities that could have resulted in exposure to carcinogens. The House overwhelmingly agreed and gave initial approval to the bill in a 104-40 vote.

Missouri Work Comp Act Unfair – St. louis Lawyer cites Cape Girardeau Attorneys Argument

May 18th, 2009

New law breaks promises made when workers’ comp began                     

Wednesday, March 23, 2005                                                 

Michael Maguire                                                            

By the time you read this, the governor will probably have signed the workers’ compensation bill. His signature will mark the betrayal of working people in Missouri who were made a promise nearly 80 years ago that they would be treated fairly if they agreed to accept workers’ compensation.

Keep in mind this is not a needed change. The statistics from our Division of Workers’ Compensation show that insurance companies are making record returns on their premiums, which means they are not having to pay out much.

It is also not an attempt to be friendly to employers, as the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry argues, although any time the chamber speaks up when you are talking about people’s rights––look out. If that were the case, this change could have been handled like it has since I started practicing law in Missouri in 1986: by getting the two sides together and coming up with a solution. For the last three years, those representing employees have tried to get insurance companies and employers to work on their complaints. They refused to do anything meaningful, biding their time until they had control of the legislature and the governor.

A little history is worth remembering. When the workers’ comp system was set up––in exchange for having a required mechanism that would provide medical care if you were hurt doing your job, provide some money if you could not work and provide payments if you had some disability as a result of your injuries––workers gave up certain rights:

1. They lost their right to sue their employers in regular court.

2. They lost the right to pick the doctor who would treat them––as the employer (read that to mean insurance company) gets to pick.

3. Artificial caps were placed on the amounts a worker could receive for weekly benefits and for permanency benefits.

4. Employees could not be awarded any damages for just pain and suffering, although someone who loses a hand or a leg or suffers any kind of work injury will readily tell you it hurts like hell.

Part of the promise made so many years ago was a presumption in favor of the employee, meaning that if all things were equal, meaning it was a tie on the proof, that the decision should go to the worker. Employers knew that and signed off on that when they set up this system. Now because of
this manufactured business-unfriendly crisis, that presumption is gone. The burden of proof for a worker has been changed from the work being a substantial factor of the injury to the prevailing factor.

Administrative law judges have faithfully followed the promise and interpreted the law, and because businesses don’t like what that means, they are putting politics into the process. Those judges will now be reviewed every two years, and if they don’t come up to standards, which will be determined by––guess who––pro-employer types, then they are out of a job.

Never mind that employers have two bites of the apple if they don’t like a decision of the judge. They get to appeal to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. And if that does not work, they can appeal to the Court of Appeals. I consider this provision alone character assassination of the fine men and women who routinely handle thousands of cases as judges and legal advisors with great intelligence and diligence.

Part of what this cadre has done is to change lawyers’ fees. Yes, I am an lawyer. And, yes, I handle cases of employees. I admit I will be looking at cases more closely, because the new law says if the company makes an offer and it is rejected, then my fee can only be a percentage of the amount I recover above that offer. If I take a case and it takes little or no work, I have no problem with that theory. However, if the usual case occurs and the employer makes the case go on for months, requiring extra work and I have to try the case, then it is not fair to me or to the employee to limit that award.

I believe, and always have, that the law is supposed to be fair––not too much for one side or the other. I know the employers and their cronies in the legislature have not given back to employees their rights they gave up when they created workers’ comp. The promise has been broken, and the
owners get all the benefits. The workers get the shaft.

Don’t be surprised after all these changes go into effect that nothing happens to the premiums paid by employees. I have said all along that the cyclical nature of insurance companies investing premiums in the stock market has more to do with higher premiums than any $6-an-hour line worker filing a claim for carpal tunnel syndrome.

If you think this is wrong and unfair to the working man and woman, let the governor and our local senator and representatives and the lieutenant governor know, because they all supported this promise breaking.

Michael H. Maguire of Cape Girardeau is a lawyer.

CBS NEWS VIDEO ON SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND ITS PROBLEMS

May 18th, 2009

<embed src=”http://www.cbs.com/thunder/swf/rcpHolderCbs-prod.swf” width=”370″ height=”361″allowFullScreen=”true” FlashVars=”link=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3713125n&releaseURL=http://release.theplatform.com/content.select?pid=Od2ZtnYdjrUieWKs_KmMHN_pc55VKavQ&partner=newsembed&autoPlayVid=false&prevImg=http://thumbnails.cbsig.net/CBS_Production_News/595/669/evening_keteyian0114_480×360.jpg” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” pluginspage=”http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer” />

St Louis Attorney Cites Study On Social Security Hearing Backlog

May 18th, 2009
Published: Dec 19, 2007 12:00 AM  SUBMITTED by JEFF SWANEY FREE CONSULTATION 314-481-7778
Modified: Dec 19, 2007 02:40 AM

 

Stringing along those who deserve benefits

We must stop the inexcusable delay in getting Social Security benefits to people with disabilities.Hundreds of thousands of people who have filed legitimate disability claims with the Social Security Administration have been forced to wait, on average, an astonishing 520 days for a hearing on their claims. Many have waited as long as three years, losing their homes in the process.

Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue has conceded that some people have even died while waiting for their disability payments to come through.

That’s mostly because the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress have provided $4 billion less than the agency has requested for its staffing needs.

The result, according to Sylvester J. Schieber, chairman of the Social Security Advisory Board, is “crushing backlogs, rapidly growing application rates and steadily declining numbers of workers to process the workloads.”

There are fewer people working at the Social Security Administration today than there were during the Ford administration. But the number of applicants claiming a disability has doubled since 2001 and is growing so rapidly that it is estimated that the backlogs of people waiting more than a year will bloat to 1 million by 2010.

Congress and the White House have been well aware of this crisis. The Advisory Board has issued 21 reports and statements since 1998 calling for more resources for Social Security disability programs.

Meanwhile, the situation keeps getting worse. The backlog has grown from 311,000 in 2000 to 755,000 today, according to The New York Times.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., put it well in a letter he sent to President Bush in September. “The bottom line is,” Dorgan wrote, “that elderly Americans and other poor individuals with disabilities that prevent them earning a living and paying their bills deserve better. Social Security disability benefits keep millions of disabled Americans out of poverty. But these people who are unable to work and need immediate assistance to avoid financial collapse do not appear to be a priority for your administration.”

What’s more, most of these people filing for disability claims have already paid into the Social Security system by virtue of the deductions from their paychecks. And fraud is rare, Astrue acknowledges.

Imagine if this were a private insurance company collecting disability insurance premiums and then stringing its customers along for years when they need to collect. This would be seen as a major case of insurance fraud.

But in Washington, it’s business as usual.

That’s got to change.

(Mike Ervin is a disability-rights activist with ADAPT (www.adapt.org). He wrote this article for the Progressive Media Project.)

 

All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner.

Read The News & Observer print edition on your computer with the new e-edition!

St. Louis Social Security Disability Attorney Welcomes attempts To Reduce Hearing Backlog

May 18th, 2009
News Page — SSA to Hire Additional Staff & Open New Hearing Offices
In testimony on April 28, 2009, before the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee, SSA updated Congress regarding its plans to use the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2009 and under the stimulus legislation to open new hearing offices and hire additional, desperately needed staff. The stimulus funds ($500 million) will allow SSA to hire more than 2000 additional staff: 39 new ALJs; more than 500 ODAR support staff; 1500 staff for field offices; and 300 DDS disability examiners. When combined with the fiscal year 2009 appropriation, SSA expects to hire more than 7000 new employees, which includes additional staff and replacing vacancies, by September 2009.You can follow SSA’s hiring on its website that reports on its use of the stimulus funds, www.ssa.gov/recovery. The website includes weekly reports that detail SSA activities, including hires for its different components, broken down by SSA region.

At the April 28 hearing, SSA stated its plans to open 13 new ODAR hearing offices in the following locations:

 

  • Phoenix, AZ
  • St. Petersburg, FL
  • Tallahassee, FL
  • Atlanta South, GA
  • Danville or Portage, IN
  • Topeka, KS
  • Livonia, MI
  • Mt. Pleasant, MI
  • Fayetteville, NC
  • Akron, OH
  • Toledo, OH
  • Auburn, WA
  • Madison, WI

In March 2009, the Commissioner announced plans for 10 new hearing offices but decided to expand the number to 13. In addition, three new National Hearing Center locations are planned:

 

  • Albuquerque, NM (opened March 2009)
  • Chicago, IL (late fiscal year 2009)
  • Baltimore, MD (early fiscal year 2010)

St. Louis lawyer Posts Information On Spinal Fusion Surgery

May 16th, 2009

Font SizeA A A Spinal fusion (arthrodesis)
Spinal fusion (arthrodesis) is a surgical procedure that joins, or fuses, two or more vertebrae. Spinal fusion is major surgery, usually lasting several hours. There are different methods of spinal fusion.

Bone is taken from the pelvic bone or obtained from a bone bank. The bone is used to make a bridge between adjacent vertebrae. This bone graft stimulates the growth of new bone.
Metal implants are secured to the vertebrae to hold them together until new bone grows between them.
What To Expect After Surgery
You will need to be watched in the hospital for a few days after spinal fusion surgery.

Bed rest is not usually necessary during your recovery period at home.

Your doctor may recommend that you wear a back brace during recovery.

Rehabilitation can be a prolonged process and includes walking, riding a stationary bike, swimming, and similar activities.

Why It Is Done
Spinal fusion may be done by itself or in combination with decompression to treat painful symptoms caused by misalignment or instability of the vertebrae, such as spondylolisthesis.

Spinal fusion may also be done as a follow-up to decompression and debridement procedures done to treat spinal stenosis, herniated discs, spinal injuries, infection, tumors, and deformities.

How Well It Works
This surgery was originally developed as a way to stabilize the spine and treat deformity or fractures of the spine. Its use has now spread to treatment of degenerative bone or disc changes and spinal stenosis. 1

Spinal fusion is often necessary to stabilize the spine after a traumatic injury, infection, or tumor. There is no solid body of research supporting the effectiveness of spinal fusion for various other spinal conditions. One study showed no clear difference between spinal fusion surgery and intensive rehabilitation for treating chronic low back pain. 2 In addition, the surgery is expensive and has significant risks. Therefore, although this type of surgery is common, it is controversial, and there is no guarantee of treatment success.

Risks
The risks associated with this procedure vary depending upon your age and overall health, diagnosis, and the type of procedure that is done.

Spinal fusion procedures frequently cause other problems. Risks include:

Pain at the bone graft site.
Failure of the fusion process and/or breakage of metal implants.
Deep venous blood clots that may also lead to pulmonary embolism.
Nerve injury.
Graft rejection.
Superficial infection.
Deep infection.
What To Think About
Because there are so many things to consider when spinal fusion is recommended, seek a second opinion before making a decision.

Complete the surgery information form (PDF) (What is a PDF document?) to help you prepare for this surgery.

Citations
Deyo RA, et al. (2004). Spinal-fusion surgery-The case for restraint. New England Journal of Medicine, 350(7): 722–726.

Fairbank J, et al. (2005). Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: The MRC spine stabilisation trial. BMJ, 330(7502): 1233–1239.

Author Shannon Erstad, MBA/MPH
Editor Kathleen M. Ariss, MS
Associate Editor Pat Truman, MATC
Primary Medical Reviewer William M. Green, MD – Emergency Medicine
Specialist Medical Reviewer Robert B. Keller, MD – Orthopedics
Last Updated February 6, 2008
WebMD Medical Reference from Healthwise
Last Updated: February 06, 2008
This information is not intended to replace the advice of a doctor. Healthwise disclaims any liability for the decisions you make based on this information.

St. Louis Lawyer Posts Informtion On What To Think About When Considering Back Surgery

May 16th, 2009

Back Pain Health Center

Font Size  Below is a great article about making the decision whether or not to have surgery.  JEFF SWANEY FREE CONSULTATION 314-481-7778

Interactive Tool: Should I Consider Surgery for My Low Back Problem? – What does this tool measure?

Click here to find out whether surgery may help reduce the symptoms of a back problem.

This interactive tool will not diagnose a back problem, but it will tell you whether surgery might help reduce or get rid of symptoms related to your low back problem. There are always risks with any surgery, so most people don’t want to have surgery unless there is a very good chance it will help them. Although research shows that surgery is very likely to be effective for some problems, it rarely helps with others.

This tool will help you find out whether your own low back problem might be helped by surgery. After you use this tool, you can show the results to your doctor when you talk to him or her about surgery and your other options.

This tool is not meant for people in emergency situations. Talk to your doctor immediately if you have any of the following problems:

  • Bladder and/or bowel problems, including not being able to go to the bathroom as you normally do or not being able to control bowel movements or urination
  • Loss of feeling or rapidly decreasing feeling over your feet and heels or in your “saddle area,” which includes any part of your body that might touch a saddle if you were on a horse, including your buttocks, your inner thighs, and the backs of your legs
  • Increasing pain, weakness, numbness, or problems with coordination in one or both legs
  • A fever for 2 or more days
  • A serious injury, an accident, or a big fall in the last 2 weeks
  • A history of spinal stenosis
  • A history of cancer