Today’s post was shared by Jon L Gelman and comes from daviddepaolo.blogspot.com
What’s better than exclusive remedy in workers’ compensation?
Let’s be honest, if you’re an employer, not much.
Sure, one may quibble about the cost of acquiring the status of exclusive remedy, but when the claim hits the file, and the exposure is revealed, there is nothing quite as warming to Business as the doctrine that provides the basic guidance to workers’ compensation.
We’ve all seen the reports this past year (more to follow) about the erosion of benefits to injured workers, and some legal challenges. Some are offended, some are circumspect – most don’t know what to think.
The context of the challenges to exclusive remedy protection is that the balance that represented the Grand Bargain is no longer in the center, and that reform after reform in the various state systems has deteriorated benefits to the point that there is no longer a reasonable compromise.
That’s the argument being played out in Nevada in the face of legislation recently introduced that would reshape one of the cheapest work comp states into, perhaps, an even cheaper state. Nevada ranked 46th out of 50 in Oregon’s most recent cost survey.
Assembly Bill 229, introduced by the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor, seeks more than a dozen changes to Nevada’s workers’ compensation law, including when an employer can terminate benefits, changing from the 5th edition AMA Guides to the 6th, and the time for filing a claim from 90 days to 30.
Other changes proposed by the bill would:
[Click here to see the rest of this post]