Postal delays impact our clients in many ways. I work for Causey Wright in the accounting department. I have noticed how the recent U.S. Post Office delays have affected our clients. Where it normally takes a day or two for clients to get their checks through the mail, it’s now taking several days, in some cases up to two weeks.
It would be easier, for us and our clients, if all of our clients had direct deposit set up. It would be more efficient if all of the insurance companies that manage workers’ compensation cases could deliver payments to us via electronic deposit. But, for various reasons, they do not.
As a result, we receive most payments from the Department of Labor and Industries electronically, but many payments from insurance companies and self-insured employers are paid by paper check.
Of interest, most self-insured employers will provide direct deposit to their claimants, but refuse to provide payment electronically to a law firm if the worker has representation. Punishment, perhaps?
Most, but not all, of our clients take advantage of our ability to transfer funds to them electronically. Many still prefer to receive a paper check. We have to respect our clients wishes, understand their different situations and work with them to best serve their needs.
Impact of Postal Delays
I don’t think people understand how serious this is, especially for our clients who are either elderly or have serious health conditions. The recent postal delays affect their source of income, their livelihood, and their ability to pay their bills. The post office delays are affecting their standard of living.
These people have worked hard and should be treated with respect for their hard work. Having to recover after an injury is hard enough without postal delays causing more problems. This situation saddens me, especially when this is happening to these populations of people.
My own mother, who is 75 years old, loves to send cards to her family. She likes to send us notes and thank you cards. Now that joy is causing her stress because of the postal delays. I just think that the elderly deserve all our respect and this is causing so much stress on their lives. They deserve to receive their mail on time and to send mail to their family and pay their bills through the mail without being totally stressed about it.
Today’s post comes from guest author Richard Cahill Jr., from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.
An injured worker walked through my door the other day frustrated beyond belief. He had been representing himself on his compensation claim for his back injury. He thought he did not need a lawyer and could handle it himself.
The insurance company accepted the claim and paid this worker only a fraction of what he was actually entitled to, though that was not the issue the client wanted to discuss. He did not even realize that he had been short changed.
What he wanted to discuss was getting back surgery. His doctor requested a laminectomy, but the insurance company told the doctor and the injured worker that they were not going to authorize it or pay for it. This man had been suffering terrible back pain for nearly six months and his surgery was never scheduled.
The injured worker was shocked when I told him that the insurance company did not have to give authorization — this surgery was already authorized under the Board’s Medical Treatment Guidelines. The insurance company knew this of course, but seemingly played ignorant to avoid paying for the needed surgery.
When I then told him that he could not only have his surgery, but also had been paid less than half of the indemnity payments to which he was entitled, the gentleman shook his head in frustration and said, “I shouldn’t have done this alone.”
How right he was. The New York Workers Compensation system is extremely complicated. Insurance companies know the system well and often do not tell unrepresented injured workers details that matter, often while telling the injured worker that they are acting in their best interest.
Do not go it alone. At Pasternack, Tilker, Ziegler, Walsh, Stanton, and Romano, with more than eight decades of experience in defending the rights of New Yorkers, we help clients get the justice they deserve.
Today’s post comes from guest author Catherine Stanton, from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.
As an attorney who has represented injured workers for more than 27 years, I see first hand what an injury can do to workers and their families. A number of years ago I represented an injured electrician, who as a result of an overextension injury sustained on the job, ended up having multiple surgeries. Almost immediately, this once athletic, high wage earner with a beautiful family and comfortable lifestyle saw an abrupt end to the life he knew.
My client faced a debilitating injury. He was no longer able to travel, his personal relationships suffered, and his once strong physique withered away. His financial situation was dire and he was unable to afford his home. Beside the extreme physical impairment, he ended up being treated for major depression. Both the insurance carrier’s medical providers, as well as the claimant’s treating doctors in this particular case, agreed that the claimant was totally disabled or incapable of performing any meaningful work activity – a standard not easy to meet.
Many of those injured on the job may not be able to return to their prior employment. Yet, according to the law, that does not mean they are totally disabled from any employment. If they are able to perform any work activity at all then they may be considered partially disabled. The amount of weekly payments an injured person receives and the length of time an injured worker receives these benefits is dependent upon a number of factors including degree of disability and loss of earning capacity. A partial disability can be considered mild, moderate, or marked. These degrees are further broken down into when an injury is deemed permanent to a percentage loss of earning capacity. In some cases the difference of one percent loss of earning capacity can mean the difference of a full year of additional benefits. As you can imagine, much of my practice is consumed with litigation regarding the degree of disability and the loss of earning capacity.
The road for those who are partially disabled is not an easy one. Despite the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination that an injured person has an ability to perform some work activity, it does not always translate into being able to obtain employment. In the case of serious injuries resulting in extensive lost time, the employer may have had to fill the position or the employer may not be able to accommodate the physical limitations. This puts injured workers in a position of having to look for alternate employment that they may not be trained for. The Board recommends a number of resources available to those seeking assistance, including one-stop career centers, as well as participating in vocational rehabilitation programs and continuing education such as SUNY Educational Opportunity centers adult career and continuing education. For more information go to www.wcb.ny.gov/labor-market-attachment
Many workers who are unable to obtain employment because of their injuries apply for Social Security Disability benefits. The standard for Social Security disability is different than Workers’ Compensation and relies more on the age and ability of the injured person to be retrained and to obtain relevant future employment. Social Security Disability benefits are payable for any illness or injury and do not have to be work related. All medical conditions are considered by the federal judge when making a determination as to eligibility, including physical or emotional impairments.
While an injury on the job can be life altering, there are resources available. You may never be able to return to your pre-injury status, but knowing your options allows you the ability to have some control over your future.
Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717.
Today’s post comes from guest author Catherine Stanton, from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.
This week marks the official start of the holiday season. It is a time for family and loved ones, and a time to reflect on the blessings that we have received in our lives. This week marks the countdown to a number of holidays including Christmas, Hanukah and Kwanzaa. Unfortunately for some people, however, the holiday season is fraught with anxiety, depression, illness and injury. Many people who sustain work-related injuries find that without their weekly salary, the holidays are a stark reminder of how their lives have changed dramatically. The inability to provide for even the basic necessities, let alone splurge on holiday presents, is a prescription for depression.
The Grand Bargain Premise of Workers’ Compensation laws in this country is that the employer, through their insurance carrier, is responsible to pay for injured workers’ medical treatment, lost wages, and permanent disability in exchange for injured workers giving up their rights to sue their employers for negligence. During the last couple of decades, Workers’ Compensation benefits have been under the continuous scrutiny of the Business Council, which has been alleging that the cost of benefits to injured workers is at the root of their increase in costs and reduction in profits.
However, a report from the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) indicates otherwise. Benefits as a percent of payroll declined in 46 states between 2010 and 2014, continuing a national trend in lower benefits relative to payroll that began in the 1990s. Costs to employers, on the other hand, continue to climb. Between 2010 and 2014, employer costs associated with Workers’ Compensation – such as insurance premiums, reimbursement payments, and administrative costs – grew at a rate nearly five times faster than benefits. Instead of using employers’ money to provide benefits for injured workers, insurance companies pay a host of businesses, including insurance medical examiners, nurse case managers, vocational rehabilitation companies and defense counsel, all of which profit from the system at the expense of workers and reap record profits for themselves. Meanwhile, the insurance industry and the Business Council falsely blame the claims of disabled workers so they can continue to increase profits by slashing benefits and shifting costs to taxpayer-funded programs instead of employer-paid insurance.
Benefits in New York have decreased under the current Workers’ Compensation system. The changes in the law in 2007 allowed higher wage earners to benefit in the short term as the amount of their weekly benefits has increased. However, these benefits are only available for a fixed period of time. If injured workers are able to return to work after a short period of lost time and a limited period of medical treatment, then some may say the system is a success. Unfortunately for many severely-injured high and low wage earners, the Grand Bargain wasn’t so grand. Medical providers’ hands are tied by Medical Treatment guidelines that limit the amount of treatment authorized based upon “best practices” or cookie cutter treatment, as opposed to what is recommended by the treating doctor. Now there is the prospect of limiting prescription medications as well, all in the name of cost reduction.
The reduction of medical treatment based on the treatment guidelines to injured workers should not imply they are fully recovered. Also, they don’t all return to work once they reach their indemnity cap. The cost of providing monetary benefits and medical treatment are shifted to the taxpayers to pick up the tab. Injured workers don’t expect that the very act of working will forever alter their lives in a negative way. Workers’ Compensation benefits are not a charitable donation, but an entitlement based upon a compromise between workers and their employers. Unfortunately, it is clear that these benefits have been gradually eroded. We should not allow any legislation that further erodes these benefits. While the holidays will continue to bring depression and despair for some injured workers, it should not be as a result of our treatment of them afterward.
Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717.
Today’s post comes from guest author Catherine Stanton, from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.
Benefits for injured workers continue to be under attack throughout the country. In New York, there have been a number of changes in the last decade, all in the name of reform. These reforms were encouraging at first as they increased the weekly benefits for some higher wage-earning injured workers for the first time in decades. They also created medical treatment guidelines under the guise of allowing injured workers to obtain pre-approval on certain medical treatments and procedures.
Unfortunately, the changes also resulted in reduction of benefits for many injured workers. Monetary benefits were capped, so injured workers deemed partially disabled could only receive a certain number of weeks of benefits regardless of their ability to return to their pre-injury jobs. The determination of the degree of disability has become a battle involving multiple, lengthy depositions of medical witnesses where the outcome is how long injured workers get wage replacement or whether they receive lifetime benefits. The criteria is not whether injured workers can return to their prior employment, but whether they are capable of performing any work at all, regardless of their past job experience or education. The battle is not limited to the amount of weeks of benefits injured workers can receive, however. The medical treatment guidelines, touted as getting injured workers prompt medical treatment, discounts the fact that if the requested treatment is not listed within the guidelines, it is denied and the burden is placed upon injured workers and their treating doctors to prove the requested treatment is necessary.
Other changes designed to cut administrative costs and court personnel include reducing the number of hearings held, thereby denying injured workers due process. There also has been a reduction in the number of presiding judges, and in many hearing locations the judges are not even at the site but are conducting hearings through video conferencing. At the end of October, the Board announced a new procedure authorizing the insurance carrier to request a hearing on whether injured workers should be weaned off of opioids that are used by many medical providers to treat chronic pain. While everyone would agree that the misuse of prescription pain medication is an epidemic in this country, many question whether the insurance industry really has the injured workers’ best interest at heart.
As an attorney who has represented injured workers for more than 26 years, I have seen many workers successfully transition from injured worker back into the labor market. It is very encouraging to note that for many people the system has worked. They receive their treatment, which may involve physical therapy, surgery, pain management, prescription therapy, or whatever else their treating physician recommends. They are paid a portion of their prior income and after a period of convalescence, they are able to return to work. Some injured workers, however, are not so lucky. The decisions about what happens to those unable to work have been left to those who seem to care more about business and insurance industry profits.
Just about one year ago, 14 people were killed and 22 more injured when ISIS-inspired terrorists went on a shooting rampage in San Bernardino, California. The nation and the world were horrified to hear about this tragedy and the story was in the news for many weeks. Now a year has gone by and many of the survivors have complained about treatment being denied and prescription medication being cut off. While many injuries happen quietly without the headlines seen in the California attack, there are many similarities. It seems that when an initial injury occurs, there are many good protections and benefits in place. However, as time goes on and costs increase, injured workers are looked upon as enemies to defeat or to forget about. Unfortunately for injured workers and their families, they don’t have this luxury and they don’t have the means to fight.
Most people don’t think it will ever happen to them. That is what most of my clients have thought as well.
Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717.
The Workers Injury Litigation Group (WILG) has been fighting against this decline for 20 years, and we will continue to advocate for fair benefits for injured workers. The following is a summary of Mr. Berkes and Grabell’s recent article:
A “race to the bottom” in state workers’ compensation laws has the Labor Department calling for “exploration” of federal oversight and federal minimum benefits.
“Working people are at great risk of falling into poverty,” the agency says in a new report on changes in state workers’ comp laws. Those changes have resulted in “the failure of state workers’ compensation systems to provide [injured workers] with adequate benefits.”
In the last decade, the report notes, states across the country have enacted new laws, policies and procedures “which have limited benefits, reduced the likelihood of successful application for workers’ compensation benefits, and/or discouraged injured workers from applying for benefits.”
The 44-page report was prompted by a letter last fall from 10 prominent Democratic lawmakers, who urged Labor Department action to protect injured workers in the wake of a ProPublica/NPR series on changes in workers’ comp laws in 33 states.
The ProPublica/NPR stories featured injured workers who lost their homes, were denied surgeries or were even denied prosthetic devices recommended by their doctors.
A “race to the bottom” in state workers’ compensation laws has the Labor Department calling for “exploration” of federal oversight and federal minimum benefits.
“Working people are at great risk of falling into poverty,” the agency says in a new report on changes in state workers’ comp laws. Those changes have resulted in “the failure of state workers’ compensation systems to provide [injured workers] with adequate benefits.”
In the last decade, the report notes, states across the country have enacted new laws, policies and procedures “which have limited benefits, reduced the likelihood of successful application for workers’ compensation benefits, and/or discouraged injured workers from applying for benefits.”
The 44-page report was prompted by a letter last fall from 10 prominent Democratic lawmakers, who urged Labor Department action to protect injured workers in the wake of a ProPublica/NPR series on changes in workers’ comp laws in 33 states.
The ProPublica/NPR stories featured injured workers who lost their homes, were denied surgeries or were even denied prosthetic devices recommended by their doctors.
“The current situation warrants a significant change in approach in order to address the inadequacies of the system,” the report says.
That’s where federal intervention comes in. The Labor Department calls for “exploration” of “the establishment of standards that would trigger increased federal oversight if workers’ compensation programs fail to meet those standards.”
The agency also suggests a fresh look at reestablishing a 1972 Nixon administration commission that recommended minimum benefits and urged Congress to act if states failed to comply.
“In this critical area of the social safety net, the federal government has basically abdicated any responsibility,” says Labor Secretary Thomas Perez.
Without minimum federal standards for workers’ comp benefits, Perez adds, the current system “is really putting workers who are hurt on the job on a pathway to poverty.”
Prior to the report’s release, employers, insurance companies and others involved in workers’ comp programs expressed alarm at the possibility of federal intervention.
“There has never been federal ‘oversight of state workers’ compensation programs’,” says a statement posted on the website of a group called Strategic Services on Unemployment and Workers’ Compensation, which says it represents the workers’ comp interests of the business community.
“Federal requirements imposed on a national basis would be inconsistent with the state workers’ compensation system, which has been in place for more than 100 years without federal oversight,” the group wrote.
Federal minimum benefits could ensure that injured workers across the country would not receive lesser benefits for often shorter periods of time simply because they lived in a state where lawmakers dramatically cut workers’ comp costs for employers.
“This is a system with no federal minimum standards and absolutely no federal oversight,” says Deborah Berkowitz, a senior fellow at the National Employment Law Project. “Clearly, more federal oversight is necessary to assure that that this system works for those most in need of assistance.”
No direct administrative or legislative action is proposed in the report, but Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, says he’s “drafting legislation to address many of the troubling findings laid out in this report and will be working with my colleagues to advance it in the next Congress.”
Brown echoes Perez, saying injuries on the job shouldn’t force workers into poverty.
“But without a basic standard for workers compensation programs, that’s exactly what’s happening in too many states across the country,” Brown adds.
Another incentive for federal involvement, the report notes, is a shift of billions of dollars in workplace injury costs to taxpayers when state workers’ comp benefits fall short and workers are forced to turn to Medicare and Social Security for treatment and lost wages.
The report lays the groundwork for federal intervention by providing an extensive section detailing the government’s role in promoting national benefits standards in both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back to 1939.
But many in the workers’ comp world consider workplace injury policy and regulation a states’ right and any prospect of a controlling federal role will likely face stiff resistance.
Dallas attorney Bill Minick (Photo credit Dylan Hollingsworth for ProPublica)
Today’s post comes from guest author Hayes Jernigan, from The Jernigan Law Firm.
Texas and Oklahoma have both adopted an “opt-out” system for Workers’ Compensation. ProPublica along with NPR recently published an in-depth look at the results in these two states. Under this system, employers can opt-out of state mandated workers’ compensation insurance by creating their own policy for injured workers. These employer-written policies give employers 100% control over the terms, the benefits, and even settlements.
Specifically, ProPublica and NPR found that these employer-created policies generally have strict 24-hour reporting requirements or even require an injury to be reported by the end of a shift. This means, if an employee does not report their injury within their shift, or within 24 hours, they are prevented from bringing a claim at all. Period. End of discussion. Employers can also dictate how much benefits will be paid and some employers have capped death benefits for employees who are killed at work at $250,000. Whereas under the State Workers’ Compensation system, if a deceased worker leaves behind minor children, they will continue to receive benefits until they turn 18 (which could easily end up being well over $250,000 when you factor in lost wages until the worker would have been 65). This is potentially detrimental to a young widow or widower who is left with very young children.
This morning we tweeted a recent ABC news article that a worker was killed when he fell at a construction site in Charlotte. I’d hate to think that his or her family would be limited to recovering only $250,000 in the event the worker left behind dependent family members and young children. Money can’t begin to replace someone who is lost to us too early from an accident at work, but $250,000 would hardly cover a lifetime of income that the family will lose, especially if young children are left behind.
Today’s post comes from guest author Thomas Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.
Those of us who represent injured workers have known for a long time that workers’ compensation does not restore an injured worker to his pre-injury wage or status. Two reports released in March show how workplace injuries have failed injured workers and leave them deeper in debt. OSHA released a report indicating the changes in workers’ compensation programs have made it much more difficult for injured workers to receive benefits or medical expenses. Although employers pay insurance premiums to workers’ compensation insurance companies who are supposed to pay benefits for medical expenses, employers provide just 20% of the overall financial cost of workplace injuries through workers’ compensation according to the OSHA report.
This “cost shifting” is borne by the taxpayer. As a result of this cost shifting, taxpayers are subsidizing the vast majority of the income and medical care costs of injured workers. After a work injury, injured workers’ incomes average more than $30,000 lower over a decade than if they had not been injured. Additionally, very low wage workers are injured at a disproportionate rate.
Another report by ProPublica and National Public Radio found that 33 states have workers’ compensation laws that reduced benefits or made it more difficult for those with certain injuries and diseases to qualify for benefits. Those hurdles, combined with employers and insurers increasing control of medical decisions (such as whether an injured worker needs surgery) reduced the worker’s likelihood of obtaining the medical care needed.
Overall, injured workers who should be paid under workers’ compensation are receiving less benefits and their medical care is being dodged by insurers and paid for by taxpayers through Medicaid and Medicare, or by increased insurance premiums for all of us through group health insurance rate increases.
Our general sense that injured workers are faring poorly is borne out by the research.
Today’s post comes from guest author Thomas Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.
While Facebook is extremely popular and used by over a billion people every day, no Facebook posting has ever helped an injured worker in a workers’ compensation claim. On the contrary, use of a Facebook page poses real dangers for injured workers pursuing workers’ compensation benefits.
Since Facebook is a public site, anything posted can be used by respondent insurance companies in claims denial. Even the most benign postings (birthday parties, family gatherings, etc.) can pose problems. For example, a grandparent lifting a 30 pound grandchild when doctors have imposed a 10 pound lifting limit could damage a claim. Additionally, nothing prevents an Administrative Law Judge from looking at a Facebook page. Even innocent posts may be subject to misinterpretation. A picture of the worker riding a motorcycle or fishing taken prior to the injury but posted afterward could place the seed of doubt in an ALJ’s mind that the worker is not as limited as he claims. The best advice is to be extremely careful about what is posted because “friends” are not the only one who can access your Facebook page.
Today’s post comes from guest author Todd Bennett, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.
Many workers are hired in one state but are required to attend orientation or participate in a hiring process in another state because their potential employer is principally located and doing business there. Once they are hired and accept the job, they are then required to work in another state for various reasons. In these situations, many workers do not realize that a different state’s laws could apply to their workers’ compensation claim if they are injured in a state that is
different from where they were hired,
different than where they accepted the job,
different from where their employer is principally located or performing work, or
even different than where they currently live.
If you have been injured in another state, you may be eligible to have your workers’ compensation benefits determined by another state’s laws. This is important, as the benefits you could be entitled to are different in every state. In certain respects, the differences are significant in terms of the amount of weekly benefits, permanent benefits, or type and duration of medical care you may be able to receive.
The right to choose your family physician to treat you for your injury or the amount and duration of the disability benefits you may be entitled to are significantly different in every state. Let’s consider a few pairs of cities:
Omaha, Nebraska & Council Bluffs, Iowa
Sioux City, Nebraska & Sioux City, Iowa
Nebraska City, Nebrsaka & Harlan, Iowa
These cities in different in Iowa and Nebraska border each other, and a great number of residents from one are employed and work in the other. If you are injured in one state but live in another, and depending on where you were hired or where you were when you accepted the employment, you may have a Nebraska or Iowa workers’ compensation claim, or even both.
Nebraska
If your employment or your accident has any ties to the state of Nebraska, your employer is required to file a First Report of Injury with the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court. When this occurs, it is common for the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court to actually mail you a copy of your own First Report of Injury that was filed with the court by your employer. Just because a First Report of Injury was filed in Nebraska and just because the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court sends you a copy does not mean you are limited to Nebraska for the benefits that you may be entitled to.
Iowa
It is also normal for an insurance carrier of the employer to mail you a letter that says, “Your employment agreement, whether in writing or made in person, required your accident to fall under Iowa law,” or some other state’s law. Generally, no one has the right to decide for you which state your case can be determined in. It is a question of each state’s laws that determine where your claim can be processed.
Nebraska and Iowa
As a matter of general practice, if your accident occurred in that state, your claim and benefits can be determined based on that state’s laws. Other things like where your employer is principally located or where your employer regularly performs work can determine if you have a claim in each state. Further, your contract of hire or where you accepted the employment can also play a part, as well as where you were residing at the time of your accident in relation to where your employer was performing work, can also determine which state you may have a claim in.
These things, as well as what type of benefits each state allow, could make it possible for you to file in both states.
Time Periods to File in Each State
Each state has a certain time period in which to file a claim or action in the compensation court.
In Nebraska, you have two years from the date of accident OR two years from the date of any payment (weekly disability check, medical bill, mileage, prescription) in which to file an action in the compensation court.
In Iowa, a person has two years from the date of accident OR three years from the date of payment of a weekly disability benefit check in which to file an action in the compensation court.
Beware, however, that payment under one state’s laws may not save your claim in another state. For example, a payment under Iowa law will count toward a payment in Nebraska. However, a payment under Nebraska law will not count toward a payment under Iowa law.
Award, Order or Settlement Agreement for Benefits
It is important to note as well that an award, order or settlement can affect your right to file a claim in another state.
For example, if one obtains a Court Award, Order or Settlement in Nebraska, this would prevent you from obtaining any benefits in Iowa, if you had the option of pursuing benefits in both states.
On the other hand, if the same person obtained a Court Award, Order or Settlement in Iowa, a person could still pursue additional benefits in Nebraska that are different than what was provided in Iowa.
In both states, the insurance carrier would be entitled to a credit for what they paid in the other state, but you would still have the opportunity to pursue different and additional benefits in the other states, potentially.
Summary
The differences in law issues are often very complex. Whatever your situation is, if you think there might be any question as to which state’s laws apply to your case, you should speak to an experienced attorney who can advise you about the laws in each applicable state.
