Back in July I blogged what I assumed was a game changer in MA: in the Ives Camargo case, the MA Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the definition of “employee” under workers comp must be based solely on the language in the comp statute and not from an amalgam of laws ranging from Unemployment Insurance to federal tax law. Suddenly, the Attorney General’s long-standing, three-pronged criteria for determining employment status appeared to be insufficient.
The MA Supreme Judicial Court recently issued the Camargo ruling, which has profound implications for the workers comp system. In a word, the ruling renders the Attorney General's 2008 Advisory irrelevant when determining whether, for the purposes of workers comp, a person is an employee or an independent contractor.
We all know how subrogation is supposed to help employers: A worker is injured through the actions of a third party; workers comp covers lost wages and medical bills from the time of the injury; the employee files a tort liability suit against the third party; the tort claim is eventually settled, the insurer is reimbursed for the comp claim and the employer's experience rating is retroactively recalculated for any year impacted by the claim. Premium dollars flow back to the employer. All's well that ends well, right? Not quite.
Yoga balls are an interesting innovation in office furniture: they promise to "improve overall well-being and provide an active outlet for having to sit for long periods of time." By requiring the sitter to balance on the large, curved surface, it helps boost energy and possibly increases productivity by focusing and engaging the mind. OK, it's not for everyone, but those who do it are enthusiastic supporters.
Just because an injury or illness occurs at work, it's not necessarily covered by workers comp. Here's a scenario in North Carolina in which a teacheer suffered a stroke during a performance evaluation at work.