As reported by the National Safety Counsel, OSHA’s Assistant Secretary of Labor, Dr. David Michaels, recently testified before Congress in support of the Protecting America’s Workers Act (H.R. 2067).
“Clearly, OSHA can never put a price on a worker’s life. It is vital that OSHA be empowered to send a stronger message, especially when a life is needlessly lost,” said Michaels.
It is time to strengthen OSHA. American workers deserve to have an effective and strong OSHA to protect workers’ health and safety in the work place. OSHA should be empowered to enforce our nation’s safety regulations and impose meaningful fines on employers charged with serious safety violations and on stop repeat violators.
Source: www.nsc.org/Pages/ProtectingAmerica.aspx
Copyright © 2010 John J. Sheehan
Time and time again I talk to injured workers who put off hiring a lawyer hoping that the insurance company will do the right thing. Funny, I’ve yet to see that happen.
Many injured workers are afraid that the insurance company will punish them by stopping their workers’ comp check or denying medical treatment if they hire a lawyer.
The injured worker doesn’t realize, however, that the adjuster is interested in protecting the insurer’s money and is not looking out for the injured workers’ best interests.
Case in point.
Within a week of accepting liability for the case, the adjuster asks an injured worker to sign an agreement to give the insurer another six months to continue to pay workers comp benefits “without prejudice”. That means that the insurance company has another six months to stop the workers comp checks with just seven days notice to the injured worker.
What happens next?
Insurer sends injured worker to one of its doctors to do an “independent” (translated - “insurer”) exam. Insurance doctor writes a report that the medical condition is not related to the work accident. The adjuster quickly stops all workers comp checks right before Christmas. Even then, the injured worker continues to talk to the adjuster on his own — without being represented by a lawyer — in the desperate hope that the insurance company will change its mind and reinstate his workers comp checks. The adjuster strings the injured worker along saying things like: she’s evaluating the claim, call back in a week or she’s reviewing the matter with her supervisor. Meanwhile, months go by before the injured worker finally wakes up and hires a workers comp lawyer to protect his rights and secure payment of his workers comp benefits.
I’ve seen variations of the same deceptive, bate and switch tactics by insurance adjusters time and time again. Without legal representation by an experienced workers comp lawyer, an injured worker is literally at the mercy of the insurance company.
When you’re hurt on the job, you have legal rights. Following a serious, disabling work accident, you need to hire an experienced workers comp lawyer right away even if you’re receiving workers comp benefits.
Don’t stick your head in the sand hoping that the insurance company will do the right thing. Get legal representation with an experienced workers comp lawyer without delay.
Copyright © 2010 John J. Sheehan
In O’Malley v. Soske (App. Docket No. 09-P-315), the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that medical expert reports are admissible into evidence at trial under MGL Ch. 233 § 79G.
The case involved a personal injury claim arising out of a motor vehicle accident in Boston, Massachusetts.
Defendant’s attorney hired a medical expert who reviewed plaintiff’s medical records, conducted a physical examination of the plaintiff and issued a written report. The Defendant’s medical expert concluded that “[t]here is no indication that [the plaintiff] sustained any anatomical derangement or structural lesion of her muskuloskeletal system as a consequence of the subject accident.”
Defendant’s attorney offered the medical expert’s report into evidence. Over the objection of plaintiff’s attorney, the trial judge admitted the report. Defendant’s medical expert did not testify at trial.
The jury found the defendant negligent but did not find that the plaintiff’s injuries were causally related to the motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff appealed.
Upholding the admission of the expert report, the Appeals Court confirmed that MGL Ch. 233 § 79G provides that “…any report of any examination of said injured person, … shall be admissible as evidence of … the diagnosis of said physician …, the prognosis of such physician…, the opinion of such physician…as to proximate cause of the condition so diagnosed, the opinion of such physician…as to disability or incapacity, if any, proximately resulting from the condition so diagnosed…”
MGL Ch. 233 §79G is a statute that outlines a procedure for offering medical records, physician/therapist notes, medical treatment bills and physician reports into evidence at trial without the need of having the physician testify in court. Such medical evidence is admissible under the statute as an exception to the hearsay rule.
There has been an effort by some practitioners to limit the statute’s application to reports of treating physicians created in the course of medical treatment and to exclude reports generated at the request of a lawyer for use at trial.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court confirmed and clarified the application of the statute in O’Malley v. Soske to include the admissibility of reports generated or created specifically in connection with the litigation. As long as the physician report otherwise complies with the statute (i.e. the opinions offered are to a reasonable degree of medical certainty by a duly license physician based on an examination of the claimant and sworn to or affirmed by the physician under the penalties of perjury) and the statutory notice is given to opposing counsel, then the report should be admitted into evidence even if the report was authored by a hired medical expert.
Copyright © 2010 John J. Sheehan
