Colorado's Latest Legislative Workers' Compensation Case Law Update
Effective as of August 7th, 2023
Colorado HB 23-1076 contains nine sections total. Sections one through seven are substantive; section eight is the appropriation, and section nine is the effective date.
The only bill section which is procedural, is section six which states that disputes regarding indigency or medical records, submitted in anticipation of an IME, will be handled by the Prehearing Unit. Medical record disputes may be related to content, format, relevancy, duplicative records, or costs. This change is procedural or will affect all claims. The other substantive sections, sections one through five, seven, and eight, are not defined or otherwise stated as procedural and would likely pertain to the date of injury.
|
Welcome Our New Associate Attorneys |
Insurance Defense Litigation, Workers' Compensation
Insurance Defense Litigation, Workers' Compensation
Insurance Defense Litigation, Workers' Compensation
Insurance Defense Litigation, Workers' Compensation
Administrative and Regulatory Law
|
|
Pollart Miller Attorney Spotlight |
Meet Attorney Jenny Moore with 11 years of experience in state government, regulatory law, workers' compensation defense and general administrative law.
Jenny joined Pollart Miller LLC in February 2022 focusing her practice on workers’ compensation defense, including representing companies and insurance carriers in workers' compensation and liability matters.
Prior to joining Pollart Miller LLC, Jenny worked for the Colorado Judicial Department offering her expertise to the Colorado Supreme Court Library, the Colorado Supreme Court, and the State Court Administrator's Office.
To learn more about Jenny:
|
|
 |
Delay in Mentioning Body Part
The claimant sustained a compensable work injury to his right knee. He was diagnosed with a medial meniscal tear and underwent surgery. Following surgery, the claimant began complaining of right shoulder pain and a rotator cuff tear was identified... [more]
|
|
|
|
Pre-Existing Condition
The claimant alleged a left shoulder injury from lifting a large overhead warehouse door that jammed. The claimant’s medical records showed pre-existing left shoulder problems with treatment continuing through two days’ prior to the work incident... [more]
|
|
|
|
ARIZONA CASE LAW UPDATES
ALJ's smackdown
In Fry’s Food Stores, the claimant’s benefits were approved after the ALJ refused to allow the employer/carrier to perform a new IME.
The claimant injured his groin while lifting a heavy object at work. He was diagnosed with an injury to his left testicle and fluid build-up. This led to the removal of the claimant’s left testicle, but he continued to experience pain. As such, the claimant sought relief from a pain management specialist.
|
|
Following this, Respondents’ IME concluded that the claimant was medically stationary with no permanent impairment and could return to work without restrictions. Respondents terminated benefits based on this IME. The claimant objected and requested a hearing.
The claimant requested two continuances of the hearing, which delayed the hearing for nearly three months. Respondents only had the IME physician as a witness to testify. The claimant’s pain management physician testified that the claimant had reached MMI but had permanent impairment related to his work injury. A day before the subsequent hearing for Respondents’ IME physician to testify, the IME physician informed the parties that he was unwilling to testify. Respondents then requested a continuance to evaluate a potential settlement. A month later, the ALJ requested an update and Respondents notified the ALJ that they had found another physician to conduct an IME.
|
|
Arizona:
You've got mail
In Orosco, an IME was scheduled in February, 2021 to determine whether the claimant had reached medically stationary. When the claimant failed to attend the IME, his benefits were suspended. In April, the claimant’s attorney notified the Special Fund that his client never received the IME notice, requested the suspension of benefits be lifted, and provided the claimant’s father’s address for future notifications... [more]
Arizona:
Battle of the experts
In Knutson, the claimant injured herself while loading groceries in a customer’s SUV by hitting her head on the hatch door. The claimant developed speech and vision problems and light sensitivity. A family friend, who was also an ER doctor, performed an evaluation and concluded she had a significant brain injury... [more]
|
|
|
COLORADO CASE LAW UPDATES
Mechanism of injury
In Donati, in March 2021, the claimant was at work trimming trees when he was allegedly injured by a falling tree limb. The claimant, who was sitting on the ground after the limb fell, complained of pain in his neck. At the hospital, the claimant reported numbness and tingling in his bilateral upper extremities, with pain in his neck, upper back, and left hip. An MRI of his cervical spine the next day showed abnormalities in his spine that were related to a dorsal arachnoid web. Respondents denied the claim and it proceeded to hearing.
At the hearing, the claimant testified that he was bent forward at the waist picking up cuttings when the tree limb fell on him, and it hit him between the shoulders, neck, and head. A coworker testified that it did not make sense that the claimant was bent forward prior to impact, because he would have fallen forward not backward. (He was found sitting down)... [more]
|
|
|
|
Colorado:
Conversion of scheduled impairment
In Gebregeorgis, the claimant sustained an admitted injury when she was sweeping snow and fell on her outstretched left arm. The claimant sustained a left wrist fracture and injured her left shoulder. Dr. Lugliani ultimately placed the claimant at maximum medical improvement (MMI) and assigned a 7% scheduled rating for the claimant’s left wrist and an 8% scheduled rating for the claimant’s left shoulder... [more]
Colorado:
Reopening
In Romero, the claimant sustained an admitted injury to his right shoulder in 2020 while working as a correctional officer. The claim was closed by Final Admission of Liability in September 2021. The claimant filed a petition to reopen for worsening of condition which went to hearing in March 2022. The ALJ denied the claimant’s petition to reopen. The ALJ concluded that there was insufficient objective evidence to substantiate that the claimant experienced a worsening of condition due to popping in his right shoulder... [more]
|
|
|
|
UTAH CASE LAW UPDATES
Medical panel not following the ALJ's instruction
In Horning, the claimant argued that the Utah Labor Commission (the Labor Commission) exceeded its discretion in considering a medical panel’s report, which he alleged was tainted by exposure to descriptions of surveillance video that had been excluded from evidence. The exclusion included a stipulation that two pages of medical records that contained a description of what was seen in the surveillance video would be stricken...[more]
|
|
Utah:
Recording IME
In Barker, the claimant refused to participate in an IME requested by Respondents unless he could video and audio record the IME. A dispute arose between the parties and an ALJ eventually compelled the claimant to attend the IME without a video recording. The claimant appealed the determination to not allow a video recording of Respondents’ IME...[more]
Utah:
Medical probability
In C.R. England, Respondents challenged a medical panel’s report arguing that the panel failed to adequately support its recommendation for cognitive behavioral therapy. In support of the recommendation, the medical panel stated its belief that cognitive behavior therapy “may be beneficial” to the claimant. Respondents argued that the use of the word “may” indicated that its recommendation was not made to the “standard reasonable medical probability” and could therefore, not support a finding that the treatment was medically necessary to treat the claimant’s injuries...[more]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
