Nevada Workers' Compensation Law Blog : Nevada Workers' Compensation Lawyer & Attorney : Virginia Hunt Law Firm : Las Vegas Job Injuries & Worker Accidents

Hay dos tipos de trabajo ligero para trabajadores heridos en Nevada:  El trabajo ligero temporario, y trabajo ligero permanente.  Las reglas son diferentes para cada tipo de trabajo ligero.

Trabajo ligero temporario es trabajo ligero ofrecido por el empleador mientras el trabajador herido todavía está bajo tratamiento con un médico.   Trabajo permanente ligero es un trabajo ofrecido por el empleador después de que el médico que esté a cargo del tratamiento le da de alta al trabajador herido con restricciones de trabajo permanentes al final del caso.

Cada vez el empleado visita al médico que está a cargo de su tratamiento, debe recibir un reporte sobre su progreso  médico (PPR). El médico escribe si el trabajador tiene  restricciones temporarias de trabajo están en la parte de debajo de el reporte de su progreso ósea el PPR. El trabajador herido es responsable de tomar una copia del PPR a su empleador y preguntar si el empleador ofrecerá  trabajo ligero que acomoda esas restricciones. Si no le ofrecen trabajo ligero, el trabajador herido recibe beneficios totales temporarios de incapacidad (TTD) del asegurador.

El empleador puede o no puede querer ofrecerle trabajo temporario o permanente ligero.  Si el trabajo ligero temporario es ofrecido, el empleador debe enviar una confirmación escrita al empleado dentro de 10 días, pero la mayoría de los empleadores no hacen esto. Si el trabajo ligero temporario consiste en el trabajo dentro de la misma clasificación como el empleo antes del accidente, el sueldo por hora del empleado debe ser el mismo. Si el trabajo ligero del trabajo está en una clasificación diferente de trabajo, el empleador puede pagar sólo 80% del sueldo que ganaba antes del accidente.

Las reglas con respecto al trabajo permanente ligero son mucho más estrictas. Una oferta permanente de empleo ligero del deber debe ser por escrito, debe permitir al trabajador herido 7 días para responder, y la intención del empleador debe de ser  ofrecer una posición que sea permanente. El trabajo no debe ser humillante ni debe ser degradante, y debe ser aprobado por el médico a cargo de su  tratamiento. Si el empleador no ofrece un  trabajo permanente ligero dentro de 30 días de recibir una copia del reporte sobre su progreso  médico (PPR) cual describe restricciones permanentes de trabajo para el trabajador, el empleado es referido para rehabilitación vocacional.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The March/April 2010 edition of the AMA Guides Newsletter reports that a review of over 6,000 cases, mostly from California, resulted in 80% of them questioned by expert rating reviewers.   For the very small number of Nevada cases reviewed for this study , the error rate was much less, with an average difference of 3% whole person impairment.  This study confirms what most attorneys who represent injured workers know about rating evaluations.  There is a tremendous difference in ratings by the various rating doctors authorized to perform ratings in Nevada, even though the rating doctors should theoretically reach the same numbers by following the methods in the Guides.

In discussing the causes of errors found in ratings done under the AMA Guides, 5th Edition, the newsletter authors state that it is more likely that an erroneous rating will be higher, rather than lower than is appropriate.  The greatest source of error is examiner inexperience or lack of knowledge.  Spine injuries are most likely to be rated incorrectly.  Errors were also found in ratings for shoulder injuries and carpal tunnel syndrome, while knee injury ratings were less likely to be wrong.

Because of the high incidence of error in rating evaluations, I always ask the adjuster to agree with me on which rating physician will do the initial rating evaluation.  Adjusters  want to avoid having to hire a defense attorney to litigate the PPD if the injured worker appeals from the PPD offer, and they want to close the claim as soon as possible. Adjusters will therefore often agree to use a rating physician who is well known and has a reputation for performing objective and accurate ratings.  However, if the adjuster does not agree to use a particular rating physician with the injured worker's attorney, the adjuster is obligated to use the rating doctor assigned by the Division of Industrial Relations from the rotating list of rating doctors. 

I sometimes see cases where the injured worker who is not represented by an attorney agrees with the adjuster to use one of the rating doctors on a short list sent by the adjuster.  It puzzles me that someone without any information about the doctors on that list would agree with the insurer to use one of the doctors suggested by the insurer instead of requiring that the insurer use the doctor assigned.  Invariably, the unknowing injured worker agrees to be rated by  a rating doctor that  I would never choose for my client.  The injured worker must then pay $650 up front for a second rating and appeal the offer based on the first rater's exam.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An injured worker asks,  "Is it wrong for my employer to urge me  to use my  health insurance to get medical treatment for my  back that was hurt at work instead of me filing a workers' comp claim?"

Yes, it is absolutely wrong for the employer to try to persuade you from using your health insurance instead of filing a worker's compensation claim and completing a Notice of Injury report with the employer.  NRS 616D.120 (1)(a) states that if the Nevada state agency that oversees the workers' compensation system determines that an employer has induced a claimant to fail to report an accidental injury, the employer shall be fined $1,500 for an initial violation, and $15,000 for a second or subsequent violation.  Even if the employer questions whether the injury happened on the job, the employer must assist the employee with the claims process. The employer can then file an appeal if the insurer accepts the claim if the employer wants to challenge it.

In California, a large grocery chain was recently fined a huge amount of money when store managers were caught trying to discourage injured workers from filing proper workers' compensation claims for their injuries by telling them they could instead just use their health insurance.   If an injured worker in Nevada forgoes filing a claim and uses health insurance, a claim that is filed later when it turns out that the injury is serious will almost always be denied by the industrial insurer. The unfortunate injured worker then loses lost time compensation benefits, a potential disability award, and perhaps retraining benefits. Do not be pressured into not filing a claim if you are hurt on the job.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is a real story about a real client.  We will protect his identity by calling him Joe, and by saying only  that he worked for a very large employer.  He hired me near the end of his claim, and after considering what  issues might still come up on his claim,  I agreed to discount my usual fee and represent him for a 20% contingency fee of any permanent partial disability award.

 When the  adjuster would not agree to use one of several rating physicians I suggested, a chiropractor was assigned from the rotating list maintained by DIR to conduct the impairment evaluation. I went with Joe to his rating evaluation, and it was apparent to me that the doctor had not  done very many rating evaluations.  The insurer offered Joe a 13% whole person impairment for his low back injury that included a surgery with a fusion at L5-S1 and ongoing neurological complaints in his legs.    The lump sum equivalent of that award for Joe, given his age and his average monthly wage, was $51,586.

I have advised Joe not to accept the offer, as I think that the AMA Guides call for at least a 20% impairment, and that the correct percentage may actually be over 25%.  I filed an appeal for Joe, and the insurer has agreed to do more diagnostic testing that will help determine whether he is entitled to a 25% PPD award instead of the 13% originally offered.

If the insurer offers a 25% award, the lump sum award will be approximately $99,200.  If that amount is offered, after payment of attorneys fees, Joe will net  about $79,360 for his PPD award.  You can do the math to determine whether it was worth it to Joe to hire an experienced workers' compensation attorney to help him on his claim.

According to DIR, in 2009, there were 6,616 rating evaluations done in Nevada.  DIR employees in the north and south are required to review only 10% of those rating reports for obvious errors or for questions that should be referred to  the panel of six rating doctorss.  It is anyone's guess as to the number of injured workers who should have received a higher PPD but didn't, because of errors by the rating doctors.  If you decide not to have legal representation during the time your claim is open for medical care, at least take advantage of experienced workers comp lawyers who are willing to review your PPD award for free.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link