Navigate Labor and Employment Law with the Best Guidance
Pollart Miller offers top legal advisement on matters of wrongful discharge, fraud, non-compete agreements and all aspects of employer/employee relationships, including complex provisions of federal statutes. Discover More about our labor and employment law services.
|
Recognized as One of the Best Lawyers in America®
for Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
|
No upcoming webinar, but you can click below to access past Webinars!
|
|
Recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America 2023
|
Kristi Robarge is recognized since 2021 for her practice in:
- Administrative and Regulatory Law
- Litigation - Labor and Employment Law
- Workers' Compensation Defense for Employers
Kristi Robarge joined Pollart Miller LLC in 2020 focusing her practice on workers’ compensation defense, subrogation, civil litigation, and employment law.
Kristi has experience representing all types of employers including small local businesses to large national corporations. Ms. Robarge has experience in all aspects of workers’ compensation from inception of an injury through hearing, appeal, and subrogation recovery.
|
|
ARIZONA CASE LAW UPDATES
Purchasing dog treats is within the course of employment… even for a forklift operator.
|
|
In CRST International, the claimant worked as a truck driver picking up large bales of cardboard from retail stores. As part of his job duties he drove a flat-bed truck and operated a forklift to load the cardboard onto the truck and take them to Phoenix for recycling. On the date of injury, after loading the cardboard onto the truck at the first of three stores, the claimant took a break and drove the forklift to the front of the store to buy dog biscuits for his dogs.
The claimant drove his forklift along the sidewalk to the front of the store and ran over a large rock, which jolted the forklift and caused the claimant to hit his head on the top of the protective cage. The forklift swerved, tilting but not tipping over, causing the claimant to again hit his head on the cage. After stopping the forklift, the claimant got out, collapsed and passed out. A police officer nearby called an ambulance, and another passerby helped. The claimant was treated in a hospital emergency room and a family member then drove him back to Phoenix.
|
|
Arizona:
When an injured worker is trying to reopen a claim, it is vital for the current symptoms to be causally connected to the original injury
In Taylor, the claimant sustained a closed head injury in May 2018 when she fell and struck her head on a tree branch. The claimant was diagnosed with post-concussive syndrome and a hematoma. The claimant also initially complained of severe headaches. By July 2018, the claimant had no cognitive complaints and her claim was closed. . . [more]
Arizona:
Mark your deadlines on your calendar to avoid untimely filings
In Courey, the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) dismissed a claimant’s petition to reopen because he failed without good cause to timely request administrative review. The claimant was injured in 1989 and treated until his claim was closed in 2017. In May 2021, the claimant filed a petition to reopen, which was denied by the insurer. More than one hundred days later, the claimant filed a request for hearing protesting the denial . . . [more]
|
|
 |
COLORAO CASE LAW UPDATES
ALJ’s characterization of lay witness testimony was proper and harmless in denying a claimant’s worker’s compensation claim
The claimant appealed a final order of Industrial Claim Appeals Office (the Panel) affirming the ALJ’s denial and dismissal of his workers’ compensation claim. Claimant alleged a work injury in which he claimed a tree limb fell on him. Conflicting evidence regarding the alleged mechanism of injury conflicted with the claimant’s account that the tree limb did not hit the claimant...[more]
Colorado:
Worker’s compensation exclusion in an automobile policy is enforceable
In Del Valle, the Colorado Court of Appeals (the Court) ultimately held that the workers’ compensation exclusion in an automobile policy is valid, enforceable, and does not violate public policy. Claimant filed a complaint in district court stating that he was injured in an accident while in the course and scope of his employment. He had filed a workers’ compensation claim and received medical benefits. The worker’s compensation claim was later settled...[more]
|
|
|
|
Colorado:
To prove fraud, know your elements. To show a mistake, it must be mutual.
The claimant appealed a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (the Panel) which upheld the ALJ’s finding that Claimant was not entitled to reopen his workers’ compensation settlement based on fraud or a mutual mistake of fact. After a lengthy procedural history, Claimant settled his workers’ compensation claim in 2019. Two years later Claimant sought to reopen his workers’ compensation settlement on several bases including fraud and mutual mistake of fact...[more]
Colorado:
The apportionment of death benefits among dependents determines the dependents’ proportionate share of the maximum lump sum payment
In Amaya, the Colorado Court of Appeals (the Court) was tasked with parsing out two statutes: C.R.S. § 8-42-121, which governs the apportionment of death benefits among a deceased worker’s dependents, and C.R.S. § 8-43-406(3), which governs a lump-sum disbursement when there are multiple dependents. The Court had to determine whether the apportionment of death benefits under C.R.S. § 8-42-101 determines a dependent’s “proportionate share” of the maximum lump sum permitted by 8-43-406(3). The Court concluded that it does...[more]
|
|
|
|
COLORADO CASE LAW UPDATES
Working out of state is not dispositive of finding a claimant is in travel status
In Aspen, the ALJ denied the claimant’s workers’ compensation claim because the injury occurred while she was traveling to work and not during the course and scope of her employment. The Industrial Claim Appeals Office (the Panel) reversed the ALJ’s finding and found that claimant was in travel status at time of her injury. The Colorado Court of Appeals (the Court) had to determine whether the Panel erred in reversing the ALJ’s decision. The insurer, Pinnacol, appealed, arguing that the Panel misapplied the travel status doctrine, improperly disregarded the ALJ’s findings, reweighed the evidence, and drew its own inferences from the facts.
|
|
The Court agreed that the Panel misapplied the travel status doctrine,
so the order was set aside and remanded with instructions to reinstate the ALJ’s original order.
The pertinent facts were as follows: The employer conducted auditions in New York City for actors to perform in a theater production in Aspen, Colorado. The claimant was signed to perform for about a month. Because the claimant lived in New Jersey, (and more than 100 miles away), the employer paid for her transportation to Aspen and provided housing. However, the employer did not provide employees with transportation once they arrived in Aspen, although they did offer bicycles as a convenience to the employees. The claimant borrowed a bicycle and signed a waiver acknowledging that the bicycle was borrowed for convenience and that the employer’s insurance policies did not include any coverage on the bicycle. While riding the bicycle to the theater for rehearsal, claimant fell off the bike and was injured. She subsequently filed a worker’s compensation claim to cover the cost of her medical benefits.
The ALJ found that once the claimant arrived in Aspen, travel was “no way contemplated by her employment contract with the Employer, and the injury occurred while on the way to the work, which is an activity excluded from workers’ compensation coverage”...[more]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
