Simon Law
Group, P.C.
720 Olive Street, Suite 1720, St. Louis, MO
63101
314-621-2828
MISSOURI WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASE LAW
UPDATE
April 2017 – June 2017
Parties Could Not Commute Award Under 287.530 Because Statute Requires Unusual
Circumstances and Commission Lacked Authority Under 287.390
Dickemann vs. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, Case No. ED105266 (Mo. App. 2017)
FACTS: The claimant was
injured at work in July 2010, and an Award of PTD benefits became final in
April 2014. In November 2016, the
claimant and employer filed a joint motion with the Commission to commute the
Award to a lump sum, which the Commission denied because it found that 287.530
only allows commutation under unusual circumstances, and no unusual
circumstances were alleged in the parties’ motion. Also, the Commission found
it did not have authority to commute the Award under 287.390 because there was
no longer an open Claim in light of the fact that the Award was already
finalized.
On appeal by both parties, the
claimant argued the Commission was required to approve the motion to commute
because it met the requirements of 287.390.1 and the Western District
previously held that 287.530’s requirements only apply to contested commutations.
HOLDING: The Missouri Court
of Appeals Eastern District affirmed the Commission’s decision to deny the
motion and held that the Western District failed to correctly interpret
Sections 287.390 and 287.530 using strict construction and 287.530 should
actually be applied even where both parties voluntarily agreed to commute an
Award.
Claimant Awarded PPD For Hearing Loss Due
to Industrial Noise Exposure Despite Wearing Hearing Protection at Work and
Exposure to Firearms Outside of Work
Abt vs. Mississippi
Lime Company, Injury No. 13-074707
The
claimant worked for 40 years in the plant, which was extremely noisy. He testified that he religiously wore hearing
protection while working until the late 1980’s, at which time they started
using radios while operating cranes. He
subsequently stopped wearing hearing protection all the time in order to hear
the radio, and he always kept the left side of the crane door open due to the
extreme heat. The employer performed
annual hearing tests, which showed the claimant had mild to moderate hearing
loss. He retired on January 7, 2013 and
testified he has been in a quiet environment ever since. He testified he began having problems with
his hearing 12 years prior to retiring and experienced humming/ringing in his
ears and had difficulty understanding people when they talked to him. The
claimant also testified he goes deer hunting once a year, previously went
turkey hunting with a 12-gage shotgun until four years earlier, and also
participates in 20 shooting matches per year using a 12-gage shotgun. He testified
he has worn noise canceling headphones while shooting since the 1970’s and has
always worn some type of hearing protection since he was in high school.
The
claimant treated on his own with Dr. Mason, who diagnosed mild to moderate
hearing loss in the left ear and bilateral Tinnitus, which he opined were both
work related. Dr. Mason found it unsurprising that he had hearing loss only in
the left ear in light of the fact that the right side of his head was in the
interior of a crane away from the noise.
The
employer sent the claimant to Dr. Mikulec, who noted that his hearing loss in
his left ear did not significantly change until after he retired in 2013 and
opined that his left-sided hearing loss was age-related or due to an underlying
medical condition, and his Tinnitus was causally related to his
non-occupational hearing loss.
At a
Hearing, the ALJ held that the claimant’s left-sided hearing loss was work
related, although his bilateral Tinnitus was not work related, and found that
he sustained 3% PPD of the left ear due to exposure to occupational noise. On
appeal, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision and Award.
Injury Compensable When Claimant Re-Tore Rotator Cuff While Performing
Mandatory Physical Capability
Duncan vs. Allied Aviation, LLC,
Injury No. 15-072795
After undergoing surgery to
repair a non-work related right rotator cuff tear, the claimant presented to
work for a physical capability evaluation (PCE) prior to returning to work. The
PCE was mandatory before a worker could return to work, and it was scheduled
and paid for by the employer. The claimant performed PCE on May 12, 2015, at
which time he felt a pop in his right shoulder followed by immediate pain. An
MRI of the right shoulder showed a large full thickness rotator cuff tear,
which the claimant’s prior treating doctor, Dr. Lingenfelter, opined was a new
injury.
At a Hearing, the claimant
testified that he was ready to return to work prior to the PCE and had no
limitations with respect to his right shoulder, was pain free, and was not
taking any medications. He testified that following the PCE, he experiences
significant pain and limited range of motion in his right shoulder.
Dr. Gilliam, who works for the
company that performs the PCE, testified on behalf of the employer/insurer that
the PCE testing machines are not capable of producing an injury. Also, the
employer/insurer argued that the claimant=s
injury did not arise out of and in the course and scope of his employment because
he had not yet returned to work.
The ALJ found that the claimant=s injury arose out of and in the course
of his employment because the test was mandatory under company policy, and
declining to undergo the same could be grounds for termination. Also, the
employer scheduled the PCE, instructed where and when to attend, and paid for
the test. Also, the risk of injury sustained by the claimant during the PCE was
not one to which he would have been equally exposed outside of employment in
his normal nonemployment life. Therefore, the employer/insurer was ordered to
provide medical care, including surgery. On appeal, the commission affirmed the
ALJ=s decision and award.
Right Shoulder Injury Sustained While
Wrestling Co-Worker Not-Compensable
Grayson vs. Thorne & Son Asphalt
Paving Co., Injury No. 15-089660
The claimant sustained a right
rotator cuff tear while wrestling a coworker at work, which required surgical
repair. According to written statements from witnesses, the two employees voluntarily
agreed to wrestle, and although workers would occasionally play around by
knocking off hard hats or throwing water or pebbles at each other, such
behavior was not permitted at work, and no one had wrestled at work prior to
the date of injury.
At a Hearing, the ALJ noted that
injuries that occur as a result of horseplay are generally not compensable
unless the horseplay is so pervasive in the workplace that it becomes an
incident of employment. Factors considered by the courts include the frequency
of horseplay, the employer’s awareness of the activity, and whether or not the
employer took affirmative steps to discourage the activity. The ALJ found that horseplay
was clearly in violation of company policy in light of the fact that all
employees were aware it was not allowed. Also, wrestling was substantially
different than the types of horseplay usually engaged in by employees.
Therefore, the claimant’s right shoulder injury was not compensable.
On appeal, the Commission affirmed
the ALJs decision and Award with a supplemental opinion. The Commission found the
claimant’s injury was not compensable because the risk source of the claimant’s
injury was his own voluntary consent to horseplay, which was unrelated to his
employment and to which he would have been equally exposed outside of work in
his normal life.
Claimant’s Testimony Credible and Injury Compensable Despite
Inconsistent Statements Regarding How Injury Occurred
Brown vs. Christian County, Missouri, Injury No. 14-063533
The claimant sustained injuries
to the right wrist/hand and right shoulder when she fell. She was standing next
to a rolling file cabinet immediately prior to her injury. At the hospital, the
claimant advised that she thought she fell after she lost her footing and also
that it felt like her ankle gave out. In a subsequent recorded statement, she
stated that she lost her footing, did not believe she caught her foot on
anything, and did not really know what happened. At the Hearing, the claimant
testified that her foot became caught underneath the rolling filing cabinet in
the gap between the cabinet and the floor, against the wheel, which caused her
to fall when she turned.
The employer pointed out the
claimant’s inconsistent statements regarding how she was injured. However, the
ALJ found the claimant’s testimony credible and found that she fell after her
foot became caught under the filing cabinet. The ALJ also found that the injury
was in the course and scope of employment because the risk source of injury was
not merely standing, walking, or turning, but was instead placing her left foot
underneath the filing cabinet. Therefore, the injury was compensable. The ALJ
also opined it was understandable that the claimant’s initial account of her
accident was inaccurate or incomplete in light of the fact that she was in
distress, taking pain medications, and was not sleeping well. The employer was
responsible for PPD benefits with respect to the claimant’s right hand/wrist
and right shoulder.
On appeal, the Commission affirmed
the ALJ’s decision and Award and noted that the claimant’s Hearing testimony
need not be discredited simply because she previously gave different, less
detailed, or incomplete accounts of her accident.
Court Cannot Dismiss Wrongful Death Petition Based On
Exclusivity Doctrine Until the Commission Determines the Injury is Compensable
Channel vs. Cintas
Corporation No. 2, et al., Case No. WD79673 (Mo. App. 2017)
FACTS: The claimant was employed
as a delivery driver when he died of heat stroke. His spouse filed a Claim for Compensation on his
behalf and also filed a wrongful death petition against the claimant’s
supervisor and the employer (Defendants).
The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that under
the exclusivity doctrine, Workers’ Compensation is the exclusive remedy for a
work-related death or injury. The Circuit
Court agreed and granted summary judgment, finding the claimant’s death was the
result of an accidental injury that could only be addressed by the Commission.
The claimant’s spouse appealed and
argued that the Circuit Court did not have authority to determine whether his
death was due to an accident under Workers’ Compensation law while the Workers’
Compensation Claim was still pending.
HOLDING: The Appeals Court
held that the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether an
employee’s injury resulted from an accident under Workers’ Compensation law and
reversed the Circuit Court’s Decision and remanded the case with an Order to
Stay Proceedings until the Claim was resolved.
The Commission held that it would be inappropriate for a court to enter
summary judgment based on the exclusivity doctrine before the Commission
decides the question of accidental injury, because granting summary judgment
would prevent the claimant’s spouse from refiling her civil law suit if the
Commission subsequently found that it was not an accidental injury.
Flu Vaccine Not Prevailing Cause of Claimant’s Congestive Heart Failure
Johnson vs. Barnes-Jewish West County Hospital, Injury No.
09-112063
The claimant’s doctor gave her a
permanent exemption from receiving the flu vaccine. However, the claimant was subsequently
advised that the H1N1 vaccination was mandatory and underwent the same on
December 7, 2009. She testified that she developed immediate numbness,
tingling, and burning in her hands, and she developed flulike symptoms within
one week after her shot. She testified that she had flare-ups of those
symptoms, and in June 2010, a flare-up caused her to go to the emergency room, where
she was diagnosed with cardiomegaly. Her condition progressively worsened, and
she was ultimately diagnosed with congestive heart failure. She treated on her
own and continues to take medications for her heart condition. She alleged that
she developed her heart condition as a result of the mandatory H1N1 flu
vaccination she received from the employer.
Both medical experts diagnosed
the claimant with congestive heart failure. The claimant’s expert, Dr. Wolfson,
testified that the H1N1 vaccine caused her cardiomyopathy and permanent
disability. The employer’s expert, Dr. Schuman, testified that the claimant did
not sustain a work injury and there is no known correlation between the vaccination
and myocarditis. He also noted that the claimant did not seek medical treatment
until six months after her vaccination.
At a Hearing, the ALJ found the
claimant’s condition was not compensable because she failed to prove that the
flu vaccine was the prevailing factor in causing her congestive heart failure.
The ALJ found Dr. Schuman’s opinion more persuasive with respect to causation
and noted the extensive gap between when the claimant received the vaccination
and when she first sought treatment. On
appeal, the commission affirmed the ALJs decision and Award.
Driving School Bus Was Prevailing Factor Causing Bilateral Carpal Tunnel
Syndrome
Lammert vs. Festus R-VI School District, Injury No. 16-006646
The claimant worked as a school
bus driver for 11 years. Before 2015, she drove older buses, which required flipping
a switch with her left hand, engaging an emergency break, and operating a
manual door with her right hand at each stop. The steering wheels on the older
buses vibrated continuously. In May 2015, the claimant began driving newer
buses, which did not require her to manually engage an emergency break or open
the door, were much easier to steer, and had much less vibration. She first
developed symptoms in her hands/wrists in August or September 2015, months after
she switched to the newer buses and after she was off work for approximately
three months for summer break.
The claimant’s expert, Dr. Schlafly,
testified that driving a school bus was the prevailing factor causing her
bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which he believed developed over years of
driving the older buses, although it did not manifest until after the change to
newer buses in 2015. Dr. Crandall testified for the employer and opined her job
duties were not hand intensive enough to cause carpal tunnel syndrome and noted
there were no studies to suggest that carpal tunnel syndrome could be caused by
driving a bus. Both doctors agreed that the claimant required bilateral carpal
tunnel releases.
At a Hearing, the ALJ found Dr.
Crandall’s testimony more persuasive and noted that although operating the old buses
was hand intensive, her complaints did not begin until months after she started
operating newer buses, and she developed carpal tunnel syndrome in her left
hand, although she only operated the manual door on the older buses using her
right hand. The ALJ also noted that Dr. Schlafly could not identify any
scientific studies relating bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome to driving a bus.
Instead, the ALJ opined that the claimant’s age, gender, obesity, hypertension,
and menopause all predisposed her to carpal tunnel syndrome, and her condition
was therefore not compensable.
On appeal, the Commission
reversed the ALJs opinion and Award and found that Dr. Schlafly’s medical
opinion was more persuasive than Dr. Crandall’s opinion. The Commission ordered
the employer to pay past medical expenses and provide future medical care,
including bilateral carpal tunnel releases.
Employer
Responsible for PTD Benefits After Left Shoulder Injury
Maryville R-2 School District vs. Paydon and Treasurer of the State
of Missouri Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Case No. WD80070 (Mo. App.
2017)
On
March 10, 2014, the claimant, a fifty-eight-year-old employee, helped a
co-worker lift a soccer goal that weighed 200 pounds, at which time he injured his
left shoulder. He treated on his own
with Dr. Atteberry, who diagnosed a rotator cuff tear and performed left
shoulder surgery on May 12, 2014. He subsequently
filed a Claim against the employer for PTD benefits.
At a
Hearing, the claimant testified that his left shoulder pain interrupts his
sleep and he now has to lie down or recline multiple times during the day and
sometimes has difficulty concentrating due to sleep deprivation. Dr. Koprivica evaluated the claimant and
issued permanent work restrictions as a result of the work injury alone,
including the need to recline and take naps on an unpredictable basis during
the work day. Both parties’ vocational experts agreed that, assuming Dr.
Koprivica’s restrictions, the claimant would be unemployable in the open labor
market.
The
ALJ found the claimant’s testimony and Dr. Koprivica’s opinion credible, held
that the claimant was PTD due to the 2014 work injury alone, and ordered the
employer to pay PTD benefits and provide future medical treatment. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
Commission’s decision and Award.
Claimant PTD from Last Injury Alone Due to Combination of Left Upper
Extremity Injury and Psychiatric Condition.
Bass vs. Board of Police Commissioners
of Kansas City, Missouri, Injury No. 08-006183
On January 23, 2008, the claimant
was exiting a police vehicle when she slipped and fell on ice and sustained an
injury to her left elbow and shoulder. She underwent left shoulder surgery with
Dr. Hood in 2008 followed by two more left shoulder surgeries performed by Dr.
Satterlee in 2009 and 2011. Dr. Satterlee released her from care on December
22, 2011 with permanent restrictions.
The claimant also treated on her
own with Dr. Logan for depression, which the doctor opined she developed as a
result of her left upper extremity injury and was exacerbated by a significant
degree of preexisting panic disorder. Mr. Cordray, a vocational expert,
testified that the combination of her physical pain and psychological issues
would prevent her from presenting to work on a consistent basis, which made her
unemployable in the open labor market.
Dr. Hughes examined the claimant
on the employer’s behalf and opined 80% of her psychological condition was unrelated
to her work injury. Vocational expert Ms. Sprecker opined she was able to
perform low stress jobs with minimal repetitive use of the left upper extremity
and was not PTD.
At a Hearing, the ALJ found that
the claimant was not PTD and assessed 45% PPD of the left shoulder, 10% of the
left elbow, and 10% of the body referable to her psychiatric condition. The
employer was not responsible for future medical care.
On appeal, the Commission found Dr.
Logan and Mr. Cordray’s opinions most credible and held that the claimant was
PTD due to a combination of her left upper extremity injury and psychiatric
condition, which was associated with the left upper extremity condition. The
employer was ordered to provide future medical care as well as PTD benefits.
Employer Responsible for PTD Benefits for Combination of Back Injury
and Psychological Condition, Both Caused by Primary Injury
Pulliam vs. RPCS, Inc. and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of
Second Injury Fund, Injury No. 11-056403
The claimant sustained a back injury
when lifting a 70-pound box and ultimately underwent a spinal fusion from T7 –
T9 and was given permanent work restrictions.
He alleged that he could not sit, walk, or stand longer than 15 minutes
after his work injury and had difficulty sleeping and concentrating due to pain. A
surveillance video showed him driving, shopping, going up and down steps, walking
without a cane, carrying bags, reaching, and bending.
Dr. Koprivica evaluated the
claimant, recommended permanent restrictions including the ability to
frequently change positions and use of a cane, and opined he was PTD as a
result of his last injury alone. Mr.
Eldred performed a vocational evaluation, noted he had to alternate between
sitting and standing, lie down during the day, and use a cane, and he opined
the claimant was unemployable in the open labor market as a result of his last
injury alone.
Dr. Halfaker performed a
psychological evaluation at the claimant’s attorney’s request and noted symptom
magnification, which he opined was the result of somatoform disorder associated
with chronic pain syndrome rather than malingering.
The treating physician, Dr. Corsolini,
opined the claimant was not PTD.
At a Hearing, the ALJ found that
the claimant sustained a herniated disc of the thoracic spine and a
psychological injury as a result of his work accident. The ALJ reviewed the
surveillance video and agreed that he was likely magnifying his symptoms, but
the ALJ agreed with Dr. Halfaker that it was likely due to a psychological
condition that resulted from his work injury. Therefore, the ALJ found the
claimant was PTD as a result of his last injury alone and ordered the employer
to pay PTD benefits. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the ALJs decision and
Award.
Employer Responsible for PTD Benefits After
Shoulder, Hip, and Back Injury
Gwin vs. Southeast Missouri Mental
Health Center, Injury No. 10-011144
On
February 17, 2010, the claimant was working for the employer as a Psych Aide and
was helping to carry a resident on a litter/stretcher when the resident kicked
her, causing her to fall to the floor, at which time she sustained injuries to
her right shoulder, left hip, and lumbar spine. She treated through the
employer with Dr. Wayne and Dr. Collard, who performed a right rotator cuff repair.
She also received lumbar and hip injections.
After she was released from care, the claimant had continued shoulder, lumbar
spine, and left hip pain and sought treatment on her own. She continued to miss significant time from
work and felt she could no longer work as a Psych Aide. She applied for a sedentary position with the
employer as a receptionist, but her application was denied and she was fired.
Dr.
Wayne and Dr. Collard believed the claimant was not PTD, as did her treating
doctor, Dr. Krause, and medical expert, Dr. Robson. Dr. Musich evaluated the claimant at her
attorney’s request and opined she was PTD as a result of her work injury. Mr. Weimholt performed a vocational
evaluation and also opined she was unemployeable due to her level of education
and lack of transferable skills. Mr.
England performed a vocational evaluation and noted she did not exhibit
observable pain behaviors and would make a good impression at an
interview. He believed she was
employable given the permanent restrictions from Dr. Wayne, Dr. Collard, and
Dr. Krause.
At a
Hearing, the ALJ noted that the claimant attended some college and completed a
program at Metro Business College, her employment history included supervisory
duties, and she did not appear to have any problems with reading or math. The
ALJ also noted she did not appear to be in a lot of pain during the Hearing,
found the opinions of Dr. Wayne, Dr. Collard, Dr. Krause, and Dr. Robson more
persuasive, and held that she was not PTD. The employer was responsible for PPD
at the level of the body and right shoulder as well as future medical
treatment.
On
appeal, the Commission found the opinions of Dr. Musich and Mr. Weimholt more
persuasive and noted that she missed a significant amount of work due to her
injuries after being released from care and the employer terminated her
employment rather than hiring her for a light-duty position as a receptionist. The
Commission modified the ALJs decision and Award to include PTD benefits to be
paid by the employer.
Fund Responsible for PTD Benefits After
Primary Low Back Injury Combined With Pre-Existing Low Back Condition
Davis vs. Ozarks Coca-Cola/Dr. Pepper
Bottling Company and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund,
Injury No. 07-050555
The
claimant worked for the employer for 27 years delivering vending machines,
which required a lot of heavy lifting, pushing, and pulling. He sustained an injury
to his low back on June 6, 2007 when a 600-pound vending machine tipped
backward onto him. He treated conservatively with multiple doctors both through
the employer and on his own. He was diagnosed with lumbar pain with
radiculopathy and aggravation of pre-existing lumbar DDD. Dr. Woodward, the
authorized treating physician, placed him at MMI on May 26, 2009 with permanent
restrictions. He did not undergo surgery. The employer subsequently fired the
claimant because they could not accommodate his permanent restrictions, and he
did not work thereafter.
With
respect to the claimant’s pre-existing conditions, he had a prior back injury
in June 2001, for which he underwent physical therapy. He also had a low back
injury in June 2006 and testified he had ongoing low back pain but was able to
continue working. The claimant also had a prior right shoulder injury and
experienced ongoing shoulder pain and popping prior to his primary injury, and
he had a prior left shoulder injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident.
The
claimant’s experts, Dr. Bennoch and Dr. Mullins, opined he was PTD as a result
of a combination of his primary injury and pre-existing degeneration in his
lumbar spine. The claimant’s vocational expert, Mr. Swearingin, noted his 11th
grade education and age and opined he was not a candidate for vocational
rehabilitation. He also noted the claimant’s extensive history working manual
labor positions and opined he was unemployable as a result of pre-existing
degeneration and the primary work injury.
The
employer’s medical and vocational experts opined the claimant was not PTD.
At a
Hearing, the ALJ found the claimant was PTD as a result of the combination of
his pre-existing injuries, low back degeneration, and the primary injury. The
ALJ found Dr. Bennoch’s opinion most persuasive with respect to permanency and
assessed 20% PPD of the body referable to the primary injury. The Fund was
liable for PTD benefits, and the employer was ordered to provide future medical
care referable to the primary injury. On
appeal, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision and Award.
2017
Changes to the Workers’ Compensation Statute
Please note this Bill has been signed by Gov. Greitens and goes into
effect on August 28, 2017
Below is a description of the additions/changes to the Statute:
MMI
MMI is the point at which the
claimant’s medical condition has stabilized and can no longer reasonably
improve with additional medical care.
TTD/PTD
TTD/PTD benefits shall be paid
throughout the rehabilitative process until the claimant reaches MMI unless
benefits are terminated by the claimant’s return to work or as otherwise
specified in the statute.
If a claimant voluntarily separates
from employment with an employer and the employer had work available for the
claimant that was within his or her medical restrictions imposed by the
treating physician, neither TTD nor TPD benefits shall be payable
Drug Testing
If a claimant tests positive for a
nonprescribed controlled drug or the metabolites of such drug there is a
rebuttable presumption which may be rebutted by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the tested drug was in the claimant’s system at the time of the
accident or injury and that the injury was sustained in conjunction with the
use of the drug if:
·
the
initial testing was administered within 24 hours of the accident or injury;
·
notice
was given to the claimant of the test results within 14 calendar days of the
insurer receiving actual notice of the positive test results;
·
the
claimant was given an opportunity to perform a second test upon the original
sample; AND
·
the
positive test was confirmed by mass spectrometry using generally accepted
medical
or
forensic testing procedures
Settlements/Rating Reports
With respect to compromised
settlements, after a claimant has reached MMI and the employer/insurer has
received a rating from the authorized treating physician, a claimant shall have
a period of 12 months from such date to obtain a rating from a physician of his
or her own choosing.
Absent a finding of extenuating
circumstances by an ALJ or the Commission, if after 12 months the claimant has
not obtained a rating from a second physician, any compromise settlement
entered into under this section shall be based upon the initial rating.
A finding of extenuating circumstances
by an ALJ or the Commission shall require more than failure of the claimant to
timely obtain a rating from a second physician.
The provisions of this subsection may
be waived by the employer with or without stating a cause.
PTD
With respect to injuries resulting in
the death of a claimant, the statute has been changed with respect to
dependents. The statute previously stated that the employer shall pay to the
“total” dependents of the claimant a death benefit. However, “total” has been
removed from the statute.
The definition of dependent now also
includes a stepchild claimable by the deceased on his or her federal tax return
at the time of the injury.
Termination
No employer or agent shall discharge or
discriminate against a claimant for exercising any of his or her rights under
this chapter when the exercising of such rights is the motivating factor in the
discharge or discrimination.
For the purposes of this section
“motivating factor” shall mean that the claimant’s exercise of his or her
rights under this chapter actually played a role in the discharge or
discrimination and had a determinative influence on the discharge or
discrimination.
Hardship Hearings
With respect to a claimant’s request
for a Hardship Hearing the statute previously allowed the Division 60 days to
set a case for Hearing but the statute has now been changed to allow only 30
days.
Coverage for Shareholders of an S Corporation
Beginning on January 1, 2018 a
shareholder of an S corporation with at least 40% or greater interest in it may
individually elect to reject coverage by providing written notice of such
rejection to the corporation and its insurer.
