About 100 years ago, a Workers Compensation System was created in the United States with a quid pro quo principle. The employers of injured workers were not liable for general damages such as pain and suffering in exchange for the guarantee of “adequate and reasonable” medical treatment and temporary wage replacement during the period of...
Workers Comp Matters
Alan S. Pierce has served as chairperson of the American Bar Association Worker’s Compensation Section and the Massachusetts Bar...
About 100 years ago, a Workers Compensation System was created in the United States with a quid pro quo principle. The employers of injured workers were not liable for general damages such as pain and suffering in exchange for the guarantee of “adequate and reasonable” medical treatment and temporary wage replacement during the period of disability. Over the last twenty years, there has been an erosion of these workers comp benefit systems. Recently, there have been several cases in Florida questioning whether workers compensation benefits are still reasonable and adequate. Claimant attorneys are calling this the “tipping point.” The question remains, how far can employers and insurance agencies reduce and restrict medical aid and wage replacement before the system becomes unconstitutional?
In this episode of Workers Comp Matters, Alan Pierce interviews workers compensation attorney Charles Davoli about what the “tipping point” means, the policies insurance agencies are putting into place, how legislators and laws are changing, and how workers compensation is being affected. Davoli begins by explaining the no-fault workers comp system that was created in order to provide injured workers with medical treatment and wage replacement in exchange for reducing their rights to sue the company. He then describes the erosion, or deform of the benefits and systems over the past twenty years in order for the insurance companies to stay profitable. There has been an increase in benefits for medical versus indemnity, medical fee guidelines, restrictive fee schedules, and peer reviews, all creating what Davoli portrays as a lot of litigious and controversial questions in workers comp. He then discusses the circuit court judgement in the Padgett v. State of Florida case and the 14th Amendment. Davoli’s goal is to bring awareness to the public about cost shifting from the employers to the public via taxpayers and insurance premiums via policyholders. If well informed of this, taxpayers and policyholders alike should be outraged.
Charles Davoli practices with the law firm of Davoli, Krumholt, and Price and is the past president of the Workers Injury Law and Advocacy Group (WILG). WILG is a workers compensation association of claimant attorneys. Davoli has spoken on several occasions focusing on the “tipping point” of where the US is in the hundred year history of the rights of injured workers to get adequately, promptly, and justly compensated.
Specail thanks to our sponsor, PInow.
Workers' Comp Matters encompasses all aspects of workers' compensation from cases and benefits to recovery.
The client count is rising for Bruce Maxwell and Thomas Holder, who learned new uniforms were making flight attendants sick.
Maritime lawyer Amie Peters updates host Judson Pierce on the state of federal advocacy for the essential workers risking their lives.
An administrative assistant’s injury at a Canadian consulate in Boston raises key questions about when foreign governments have to comply with U.S. employment laws.
George Flores shares insights from his article “Lewis and Bourgoin: The Growing Divide Over Reimbursement for Medical Marijuana in the Workers’ Compensation System.”
Bill Minick explains the QCARE designation for Texas employers who have opted out of traditional workers’ comp programs.
Amie Peters and Mack Babcock answer common workers’ comp questions arising from the pandemic.