Employment Law Tip:
Per the EEOC's Enforcement Guidance, having a criminal record is not listed as a protected status under Title VII. However, a charge of discrimination for disparate treatment may still occur if an employer treats criminal history information differently for different applicants or employees based on their race, national origin, or other protected basis. Example: Hispanic applicant rejected based on criminal record but similarly situated White applicant hired with similar criminal record. Thus it is recommended that targeted instead of blanket screenings be conducted of criminal records, and that their purpose be specific job-related and consistent with business necessity.
For questions on how best to implement within your company's policies and procedures, please contact us here at Thomas Pollart & Miller LLC at
(720) 488-9586.
|
Children's Hospital Colorado
Good works. Supporting non-profit organizations is one way that the employees of TPM fulfill their wish to do good for the community. At the beginning of 2016 our employees nominated their favorite charities and 12 were selected. In the month of February TPM will donate to Children's Hospital Colorado. When it was founded in 1908 in Denver, Colorado, Children's Hospital set out to be the leader in providing the best healthcare outcomes for children. That calling has consistently made them one of the top 10 children's hospitals in the nation and a place parents across the Rocky Mountain region have come to trust. Their modern-day mission is to improve the health of children through the provision of high-quality, coordinated programs of patient care, education, research and advocacy.
|
|
 |
|
Reporting for Work isn't a Guarantee That An Injury is Work Related
In a recent win TPM attorney
Brad J. Miller convinced an ALJ that a claimant was not yet in the course of employment when he was injured near the start of his work shift. The claimant alleged that he was already "in the course and scope of employment" as he had to arrive early to work to be ready to help tear down a stage at a music venue. The claimant argued that the employer required him to arrive 30 minutes early so he was ready to help tear down the stage the minute the concert ended.
The claimant testified that he arrived at work on the day of the injury and reported to his supervisor that he was ready to go. The concert was not finished yet so he had a couple of minutes to wait. He was injured when he was hit by a car while crossing a public road to grab a soda at a gas station across the street from the concert venue. Claimant testified that his supervisor approved his request to go grab a soda at the gas station because the concert had not ended.
Mr. Miller argued to the ALJ that claimant was not required to come in early for work, had not started work and was not on the employer's premises when the injury occurred. The ALJ agreed with these arguments and denied the claim with prejudice.
This successful hearing result highlights the fact that there are times when an injury will not be considered work-related even after a claimant reports and arrives at a work site. These cases often are decided by the particular facts involved but there are certainly situations when such a claim can be denied successfully.
_______________________________________________________________________
The Importance of Reviewing Cases Individually before Filing Admission
TPM attorney
Brad J. Miller recently prevailed on a compensability defense involving a claimant that alleged she was injured from loading magazines into boxes that moved along a conveyor belt. Specifically, claimant alleged that she suffered a specific injury to her lower back as a result of lifting the magazines.
Initially, the medical condition appeared to most likely be compensable because there was a reported accident and claimant had admittedly not had any prior treatment for her lower back in the 5 years leading up the incident. The claimant also required immediate medical treatment after the reported accident. Mr. Miller nevertheless argued that there was no compensable injury. Specifically, he argued under controlling Colorado case law that even though there was a reported "accident," there was no resulting "injury." Under Colorado law, a claimant must prove that the reported "accident" requires the need for medical treatment for the incident to be considered a compensable "injury."
Claimant argued that it was undisputed that the accident was reported and that his client required medical treatment so there must be a compensable injury. In response, Mr. Miller took the position that even though an accident was reported, claimant really did not need the medical treatment provided. Mr. Miller also focused on the fact that the medical records from the treating providers demonstrated non-organic findings that called into question whether there was an actual injury.
The ALJ agreed with Mr. Miller and denied the claim with prejudice. The ALJ found that claimant's physical complaints lacked credibility and there was not a need for medical treatment despite the reported accident. As a result, the ALJ denied the claim.
This case result highlights the fact that a claim is not necessarily compensable just because there is an uncontested accident and resulting medical treatment. Each case needs to be reviewed individually to determine whether the medical treatment truly was needed before an admission can be filed.
_______________________________________________________________________
Injuries Are Not Always Considered Work Related, Even if at First Glance They Appear to Be
In a recent win for TPM, attorney
Brad J. Miller successfully prevailed on two separate claims brought by a claimant that cut meat for a living. The claimant argued that he initially suffered an occupational disease to his right shoulder, upper extremity and hand from repetitive cutting activities. A couple months later, the claimant alleged that he also suffered a traumatic injury to his left shoulder from moving a large bucket full of meat.
There was a concern that the medical conditions involved were work-related because claimant did perform significant hand activities while cutting meat and also admittedly had a torn rotator cuff in his left shoulder. Moreover, claimant was young and there was no evidence that claimant had any prior problems with either extremity or shoulder. Mr. Miller argued at hearing that the conditions were nevertheless not work-related based in part on the following: (1) the claimant had swelling in both of his hands and symptoms which may be consistent with a rheumatological disorder; (2) the claimant reported similar symptoms in both upper extremities despite the fact that one was allegedly caused by a specific traumatic event and the other was caused by an occupational disease; (3) the rotator cuff tear that claimant had in his shoulder was probably due to an idiopathic down slopping acromiom which leads naturally to impingement and degenerative rotator cuff tears; and (4) claimant was able to return to work without difficulty later which may be consistent with the natural course of a rheumatological disorder which will have symptoms which vary over time.
The ALJ agreed with Mr. Miller's arguments and denied the claim with prejudice. This case helps demonstrate the fact that a medical condition is not always going to be considered work-related just because there are objective findings of a structural tear present and there was no symptoms or medical treatment prior to the alleged work injuries.
|
Thomas Pollart & Miller LLC is a civil litigation law firm that provides legal services to businesses throughout Colorado, Nebraska and Utah. The firm's more than 55 legal professionals are dedicated to serving the needs of our clients.
Our goal is simple
: to be the legal service provider and partner of choice for civil litigation. We accomplish this by providing superb client service, aggressive representation and sound advice to achieve our clients' business and litigation goals. We have the experience and resources of an established firm, with the personal attention and sensitivity to costs uniquely tailored for each client.
|
|
|
