Occupational Disease Victims Neglected by Workers' Comp System
More than a century after the workers' compensation system was implemented, it is becoming more evident that those suffering from job-related diseases are often left out, with no path to justice.
May 23, 2019 at 12:22 PM
6 minute read
More than a century after the workers' compensation system was implemented, it is becoming more evident that those suffering from job-related diseases are often left out, with no path to justice.
A 2015 report by the nonprofit investigative news organization, Center for Public Integrity, concluded that for chemically induced illnesses and other occupational illnesses that can take years to develop, “workers' comp rarely works at all.”
|Strict Time and Proof Requirements
A major problem is that many diseases triggered by on-the-job exposure are also caused by factors such as genetics, exposure to carcinogens outside the workplace, diet, smoking, bad luck, etc. Often, sick workers never suspect that their job had anything to do with the disease or they do not find out until it is too late to make a workers' compensation claim.
Numerous states have enacted measures that create insurmountable obstacles for occupational disease victims. Most workers' compensation laws have burdens of proof requiring claimants to establish that workplace exposure more likely caused the disease than all other possible factors. Such strict proof requirements lead to frequent denials of benefits.
In addition, many states have statutes of limitation that do not provide enough time to file a claim. Most base the deadline for filing a claim on the date of last exposure to the disease-causing hazard, not the actual diagnosis of the illness.
For instance, the statute of limitations for workers' compensation claims in Pennsylvania is three years from the date of injury. The Workers' Compensation Act does extend the time for occupational diseases caused by exposure to a workplace hazard—requiring that disability must occur within 300 weeks of the last exposure to the harmful toxin.
The problem is that it often takes job-related diseases years to surface—some take decades to become symptomatic. For instance, Mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure, remains latent for decades.
The substantial lag between exposure and diagnosis for many illnesses has left sick workers without coverage, allowing many employers and insurers to escape responsibility.
|Most Diseases Left Uncovered
The result is that most occupational disease sufferers never file a workers' compensation claim. The Center for Public Integrity report cited a 2004 study by Professor J. Paul Leigh, an economist at the University of California, Davis, who estimated that more than 95% of fatal occupational disease are not covered by workers' compensation.
Those occupational illness claims that do get filed are denied at a far higher rate than injury claims, the Center for Public Integrity reported.
The report focused on states with statistics that differentiate between injury and illness claims. In Oregon, 36% of disease claims in 2014 were denied, compared to 11% of injury claims, the report said. In Ohio, the denial rate for disease claims was nearly 50% and 14% for injury claims.
|A Bargain Not So Grand
The workers' compensation system is often described as the “grand bargain,” under which workers gave up the right to sue for damages for an on-the-job injury in return for a guarantee that they can recoup their lost wages and medical expenses.
Developed a century ago, the system ensured that workers would no longer have to prove their employers were negligent while employers were freed from paying for pain and suffering and punitive damages. The system was supposed to provide a faster, cheaper and less adversarial way to resolve disputes between workers and employers.
In most cases, the workers' compensation system is the sole recourse for workers injured on or sickened by their jobs. However, that system has essentially abandoned sick workers.
Some courts have ruled that occupational disease victims who discover their illnesses after the workers' compensation filing deadline may sue their employers. But filing suit poses a whole bunch of other obstacles—including costs and burdens of proof— that the workers' compensation system was supposed to remedy.
|Burden Shifted to Government Programs, Workers
Meanwhile, many employers and insurers are escaping liability for workers' illnesses. The costs of workplace illnesses have shifted to nonworkers' compensation insurance, government programs and—most significantly—workers and their families.
The system has resulted in taxpayers subsidizing employers, straining social insurance programs such as Social Security disability, Medicare and Medicaid.
The Center for Public Integrity cited another study by Leigh and his colleague James Marcin concluding that in 2007 nonworkers' compensation insurers and taxpayers picked up the tab for $27 billion in costs related to work injuries and illnesses. Of that figure, Medicare and Medicaid paid more than $12.5 billion.
In a 2015 report, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration said that federal and state programs pick up 16% of the overall lost income and medical costs generated by occupational illnesses and injuries, with Medicare and Medicaid alone picking up almost 19% of all medical expenses.
But the largest burden is being carried by those the system was meant to assist—workers sickened by their jobs. The study by Leigh and Marcin estimates that workers and their families paid a whopping $125 billion out of their own pockets in 2007 for work-related injuries and illness.
Changes are needed. As currently constructed, the workers' compensation system is not serving workers sickened by on-the-job exposure. A more equitable solution is needed—one that places the responsibility back on employers and insurers.
Samuel H. Pond is the managing partner at Pond Lehocky Stern Giordano, the a workers' compensation firm. For more than 30 years, he has been representing workers injured on the job. He is also the host of the Legal Eagles radio show, which aims to educate the public on the law. He can be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250