If you become eligible for SSDI benefits while drawing FECA benefits from OWCP, whether for wage loss or a schedule award, there is frequently an offset that will reduce your SSDI benefit. SSA has published documents that explain how the offset is calculated. Keep in mind that attorney fees paid in connection with your receipt of FECA workers' compensation payments from OWCP should be reported to SSA, as this will be used to reduce your offset amount.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10018.html
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Submit Your OWCP Forms Online
OWCP has gone live with a new function that allows for web submission of forms and documents. You can submit a new claim form to create your case without going through your agency if you follow the instructions to first file the OSHA form. CA-7 and CA-7a forms can be submitted as well. There is a separate function to upload documents. This is pretty amazing, I wonder if it really works. I submitted a document in one of my cases today to see what happens. Here is a link: https://www.ecomp.dol.gov/#/
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Do I need a lawyer to represent me with my OWCP claim for FECA benefits?
This is a question that I get asked quite often. OWCP sends claimants form letters telling them that they do not need a lawyer to represent them. When asked this question, I try to explain that after almost 20 years, there is a lot that someone like me can bring to the table. While speaking with a prospective client the other day I ran across a situation that answers this question pretty conclusively. Unfortunately, Ms. X's OWCP claim has recently been terminated. The termination was premised upon the report from a physician, Menachem Meller, MD, who the Employees Compensation Appeals Board indicated in a July 26, 2011 decision should not perform referee examinations. Based upon that decision, OWCP stopped sending my clients to that doctor, but this injured worker was sent a notice in September 2011 to attend an examination with this doctor who predictably wrote a report indicating she had fully recovered from her injuries when her own doctors continue to explain she has most certainly not recovered. If I had been representing her at that time, OWCP would not have sent her to this doctor, and if they did, I would have known to object. Even though FECA is supposed to be a noneadversarial process, and OWCP has an obligation to protect injured workers, in practice, OWCP treats injured workers in an adversarial manner and pretends that an injured worker is fully informed about all nuances of this process. So the answer to that common question in this case is that if I had been representing Ms. X she would most likely not even have been sent to this doctor, and if she had, I would have known to object to them selecting him, and she would then most likely not have had her benefits terminated. There is a great deal that a knowledgeable and zealous representative can bring to the process, OWCP is not looking out for you.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Be careful about the standard of causation
The clever term "tort reform" has been used by insurance companies and corporations to press their agenda of stripping Americans of the traditional protections found in the law and creating many situations where those responsible for injuries escape liability and leave the taxpayer responsible for paying public assistance to those suffering from what should be considered work related injuries. To this end, many state workers compensation laws have been amended to make it more difficult for injured workers to receive workers compensation benefits for injuries that were once considered work related. One way of doing this is to change the traditional standard of causation to one that is less inclusive.
I recently saw this effect in the case of a client from Florida whose FECA benefits were rejected by OWCP based upon a directed medical examination report. Florida has enacted many rules that have stripped injured workers of the the traditional protections once thought to be basic concepts of workers compensation by making it more difficult to establish that a medical condition is related to factors of employment.
The standard of causation utilized by OWCP in a FECA case is whether a work factor contributes in any way or to any degree to a medical condition. In Florida, that traditional black letter standard was tossed aside by requiring a work factor to be a “major contributing cause.” My client was sent to a directed examination by OWCP with a physician who claimed his work factors were not a "major contributing cause" of his medical condition.
On review, OWCP agreed that the physician had erroneously applied the much more limited standard of causation under Florida's workers compensation law rather than the traditional standard of causation that is applicable in a FECA case.
I recently saw this effect in the case of a client from Florida whose FECA benefits were rejected by OWCP based upon a directed medical examination report. Florida has enacted many rules that have stripped injured workers of the the traditional protections once thought to be basic concepts of workers compensation by making it more difficult to establish that a medical condition is related to factors of employment.
The standard of causation utilized by OWCP in a FECA case is whether a work factor contributes in any way or to any degree to a medical condition. In Florida, that traditional black letter standard was tossed aside by requiring a work factor to be a “major contributing cause.” My client was sent to a directed examination by OWCP with a physician who claimed his work factors were not a "major contributing cause" of his medical condition.
On review, OWCP agreed that the physician had erroneously applied the much more limited standard of causation under Florida's workers compensation law rather than the traditional standard of causation that is applicable in a FECA case.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
OWCP ridicules injured workers
The article below from the Dayton Daily News documents the continuing shameful actions of those running OWCP whose contempt for injured workers continues to permeate and poison the adjudication of claims by OWCP employees. Unfortunately, OWCP fails to meet its responsibility to protect injured workers as its present mindset is to focus on its relationship with "stakeholders", a term that refers only to employing agencies and contractors. Injured workers seem to be far less important to OWCP than "stakeholders."
"Atomic workers ridiculed in training manual Labor info on handling illness claims filled with pop culture references."
Tom Beyerlein, Staff Writer
10:45 PM Sunday, September 25, 2011
DAYTON -- Advocates for atomic workers sickened by on-the-job radiation exposure at places like the Miamisburg Mound Plant say they're outraged by a training manual for a federal compensation program that refers to a hypothetical claimant as "Freddy Krueger," the name of a horror movie character whose face was badly burned. The undated Labor Department manual, used in training people who screen applicants for possible compensation and medical benefits, also refers to the pathologist in a hypothetical dead worker's case as the fictitious serial killer Dr. Hannibal Lecter. The manual's jocular attitude toward workers who have suffered from cancers and other serious illnesses is "indicative of the disrespect that's shown to claimants" by Labor Department officials, said worker advocate Deb Jerison of Yellow Springs, who heads a nonprofit that helps sick atomic workers and their survivors obtain federal benefits. Some of the workers have died from their illnesses. Labor officials did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment.
The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, administered by the Labor Department, provides medical benefits and compensation for sick atomic workers, if it is shown their illnesses were caused by occupational exposures. Workers suffering from cancers and some other illnesses known to be caused by radiation exposures can receive lump-sum payments, as can certain survivors.
For decades, the Energy Department claimed that none of its workers was sickened by radioactive exposures. Since the program was established in 2001, it has paid $7.4 billion in compensation and doctor bills for more than 86,000 claimants.
Jerison obtained the manual in a Freedom of Information Act request to Labor and found it riddled with pop-culture references. "None of the (hypothetical) claims examiners had names like this. It was like 'Jane Doe.' Bland names, which is appropriate (for the tone of a training manual)," said Jerison, whose father, Mound physicist James Goode, died in 1960 at age 36. After a six-year process, Jerison helped her mother win survivor benefits, but her mother died in 2008 before the money arrived.
In a letter to Labor officials, chemist David Manuta of Waverly, a member of the Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups, called the humor "examples of (a) history of disrespect" for applicants.
Manuta also criticized the "shameful comments" in May of program Director Rachel Leiton, who, according to a meeting transcript, told an advisory board that sick workers couldn't be trusted to tell the truth in affidavits about their work history at atomic plants. Many cases involve decades-ago employment for which records are hard to find.
"Atomic workers ridiculed in training manual Labor info on handling illness claims filled with pop culture references."
Tom Beyerlein, Staff Writer
10:45 PM Sunday, September 25, 2011
DAYTON -- Advocates for atomic workers sickened by on-the-job radiation exposure at places like the Miamisburg Mound Plant say they're outraged by a training manual for a federal compensation program that refers to a hypothetical claimant as "Freddy Krueger," the name of a horror movie character whose face was badly burned. The undated Labor Department manual, used in training people who screen applicants for possible compensation and medical benefits, also refers to the pathologist in a hypothetical dead worker's case as the fictitious serial killer Dr. Hannibal Lecter. The manual's jocular attitude toward workers who have suffered from cancers and other serious illnesses is "indicative of the disrespect that's shown to claimants" by Labor Department officials, said worker advocate Deb Jerison of Yellow Springs, who heads a nonprofit that helps sick atomic workers and their survivors obtain federal benefits. Some of the workers have died from their illnesses. Labor officials did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment.
The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, administered by the Labor Department, provides medical benefits and compensation for sick atomic workers, if it is shown their illnesses were caused by occupational exposures. Workers suffering from cancers and some other illnesses known to be caused by radiation exposures can receive lump-sum payments, as can certain survivors.
For decades, the Energy Department claimed that none of its workers was sickened by radioactive exposures. Since the program was established in 2001, it has paid $7.4 billion in compensation and doctor bills for more than 86,000 claimants.
Jerison obtained the manual in a Freedom of Information Act request to Labor and found it riddled with pop-culture references. "None of the (hypothetical) claims examiners had names like this. It was like 'Jane Doe.' Bland names, which is appropriate (for the tone of a training manual)," said Jerison, whose father, Mound physicist James Goode, died in 1960 at age 36. After a six-year process, Jerison helped her mother win survivor benefits, but her mother died in 2008 before the money arrived.
In a letter to Labor officials, chemist David Manuta of Waverly, a member of the Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups, called the humor "examples of (a) history of disrespect" for applicants.
Manuta also criticized the "shameful comments" in May of program Director Rachel Leiton, who, according to a meeting transcript, told an advisory board that sick workers couldn't be trusted to tell the truth in affidavits about their work history at atomic plants. Many cases involve decades-ago employment for which records are hard to find.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
OSHA finds that USPS management ignores hazards and injuries
A recent news article from the APWU contains important information for USPS workers who have OWCP claims arising from injuries caused by DBCS machines. The full article, which has embedded links to the documents referenced in the article, can be found at the APWU website at the following link:
http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2011/11-007-osha-dbcsmachines-110114.htm
OSHA determined that Delivery Bar Code Sorter machines pose a direct risk to workers’ health, and that there is a “general lack of understanding about the hazards and injuries” associated with the equipment among postal managers. OSHA also reported that supervisors have ignored injury complaints; encouraged clerks to “work through” the pain, or have discouraged the reporting of injuries. “This fosters a perceived ‘lack of caring’ about the worker,” the agency reported.If you are pursuing a FECA claim with OWCP with regard to repetitive motion injuries arising from using DBCS machines, you should read through the materials posted by APWU.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
ECAB recognizes appearance of bias and throws out referee report
If OWCP tries to send you to Menachem Meller, M.D., be sure to object prior to the examination that the Employees Compensation Appeals Board has found that Dr. Meller's conduct gives rise to the appearance of bias and you are entitled to select your referee from a list of three physicians. In a recent ECAB decision, J.S., docket no. 10-2198, issued July 26, 2011, the Board recognized and accepted my objections to the selection of Philadelphia area physician Menachem Meller, M.D. A Pennsylvania court held Dr. Meller's "testimony as a whole preposterous throughout, offensive at times, ill willed and entirely not credible and ill prepared." The Board held in J.S. that this gives rise to the appearance of bias and that OWCP should have recognized this appearance of bias and provided us with a list of three physicians from which J.S. should have been allowed to select his referee. The failure of OWCP to do this meant that the office could not rely upon the report from Dr. Meller and that OWCP must now send us a list of three physicians and schedule a new referee examination. Interestingly, it has now been almost two months and OWCP still has not acknowledged or acted upon the remand order from the Board. The Board also noted that OWCP's argument that I had only cited one court decision criticizing Meller was unpersuasive. If OWCP attempts to refer you to this physician, you must object PRIOR to attending the examination and request that because of the appearance of bias you are entitled to be given a list of three physicians from which you can select your referee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
