Employment Law Tips with Joseph Irwin:
Federal employment discrimination laws (including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Americans With Disabilities Act, as amended) do not apply to employers with fewer than 15 employees (or 20, in the case of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act). In Colorado, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (or "CADA") similarly prohibits discrimination and applies to virtually all employers, regardless of size. Smaller employers are covered by the CADA, but until recently, the remedies for claimed discrimination were limited under the CADA. Even if found liable, smaller employers would not be responsible for damages such as front pay, attorney fees, and emotional distress, and there were no jury trials available for victims of employment discrimination under the CADA. Now however, the disparity between the consequences of discriminatory acts for larger and small employers in Colorado changed effective January 1, 2015. Under the amended CADA, employees claiming discrimination after January 1, 2015 will be entitled to a trial by jury, compensatory and possible punitive damages, and attorney's fees, regardless of employer size.
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.
|
Lustgarden Foundation
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 August TPM will donate to the Lustgarden Foundation. Their mission is to advance the scientific research related to the diagnosis, treatment, cure and prevention of pancreatic cancer. They want to increase funding and support of research into the biological mechanisms and clinical strategies related to the disease. They also desire to heighten public awareness of pancreatic cancer and provide informational support to the patients, their families and friends.
|
|
 |
|
The Importance of Witness Interviews & On-Site Evaluations
In a win by TPM attorney
Charlotte Veaux, Respondents defeated a claim for an occupational disease involving the shoulder. Claimant had a long medical history that included autoimmune and connective tissue disorders, as well as pre-existing shoulder pain. She worked as a Fire Sprinkler Technician. There was a significant factual dispute as to the amount of overhead work required by her job duties. Claimant testified she performed "nonstop" overhead work, but the ALJ credited the employer witness that her job duties required only occasional overhead work. The ALJ then found that Claimant had failed to meet the criteria to establish causation pursuant to Rule 17. This case emphasizes the importance of thorough witness interviews and on-site evaluations in addition to knowledge of the Medical Treatment Guidelines.
_______________________________________________________________________
Challenging New Surgical Requests
In a recent win for
Gail Benson, Respondents had admitted on a 2012 claim and paid for several surgeries involving multiple body parts. Claimant subsequently suffered a new fall which she attributed to a weakening of condition related to her work injuries. A right total knee revision surgery and right rotator cuff revision surgery were recommended. Ms. Benson chose to challenge these new surgical requests.
Through detailed research she was able to uncover that Claimant had ongoing right knee problems dating back to 2001, which she had previously denied. Respondents' expert opined that the right knee issues, including the subsequent falls, all stemmed from an injury sustained in 2001 and that several of the surgeries Respondents had paid for had actually been due to the pre-existing right knee injury.
The ALJ agreed with Respondents and not only denied both surgeries, but issued an opinion that two of the claimed body parts were never causally related to the initial work injury. This case highlights that just because you have admitted to an injury or paid for medical procedures, there is still the opportunity to deny later requests for treatment on the basis that the injury was not causally related to the work event. Ms. Benson's legal arguments were prepared with the assistance of William D. Taylor, Law Clerk at Thomas Pollart & Miller.
_______________________________________________________________________
How Technology Can Demonstrate Medical History In Court
Thomas Pollart & Miller's Jake Johnson and Eric Pollart recently won a case where Claimant was rear-ended while on the job and subsequently had a back surgery. When he first went to the surgeon to discuss surgery for his pain, Claimant did not fully disclose to the surgeon that he had back pain due to a previous accident and degenerative issues. Our attorneys went to an expert who examined the Claimant's MRIs pre and post accident.
While displaying these results in court using multiple screens, the expert was able to walk those present through the two MRIs, very clearly demonstrating that the Claimant had a disc herniation prior to the accident. The ALJ denied and dismissed the claim. This case highlights how important it is to understand that surgeons aren't always going to have all of the facts when making their recommendations. It is best to thoroughly examine a Claimant's medical history to avoid this issue. It is also a good example of how it is possible to use technology to help the ALJ make an informed ruling.
|
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.
|
|
|
