The Washington Court of Appeals recently issued a decision favorable to self-insured employers with regard to post-pension treatment in Second Injury Fund pension cases. The issue in The Boeing Co. & Patricia Doss v. Dep’t of Labor and Indus., No. 69759-1, (WA Ct. of Appeals Div. 1, March 31, 2014) was: who pays for Department-authorized post-pension treatment in self-insured Second Injury Fund pensions?
In Vigor Industrial, LLC v. Ayres, 257 Or App 705 (2013), the Court boiled down the components of a combined condition to a simple mathematical formula. Simple, yes, but the equation creates a potentially significant hurtle when attempting to deny an injured worker’s combined condition.
Washington State adheres to the axiom that its workers’ compensation system provides coverage to a worker injured in the course of employments without consideration of fault. On occasion the “no-fault” system seems to trivialize personal responsibility. The recent decision of the Washington State Court of Appeals, however, is a refreshing reminder that claimants of benefits under the Industrial Insurance Act do have at least a modicum of responsibility for their own personal well-being.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision on March 26, 2014, which found that university scholarship football athletes are “employees” under the National Labor Relations Act[1]. In the decision, Regional Director Peter Sung Ohr, of Region 13 (Chicago), noted that the combination of the university’s restrictions on the activities that scholarship football athletes could engage in; the time requirements it placed on the athletes; recruitment of the athletes for solely their athletic abilities; payment to the athletes in the form of large scholarships; the athletes generate millions of dollars in revenue for the institution; and special rules governing the athletes beyond those applied to other students amounted to control over the athletes which fell within the definition of an employer-employee relationship.
The Oregon Workers’ Compensation Board recently published its decision in Robert G. Green, 66 Van Natta 414 (2014). In this case, the Board interpreted OAR 436-030-0023 and confirmed the circumstances under which an employer can rescind and reissue a Notice of Closure.