Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on September 22, 2011

Click here to view bill details.

When every postion contested in the last election was won by republicans, isn't legislation like this exactly what we expected?  Reducing benefits by the amount of pension benefits an injured worker is NOT receiving?  That's pure republican genius!  [In case the reader doesn't realize it, that's  sarcasm.]

And no benefits for illegal aliens?  How about the employer pays DOUBLE benefits because it's against the law to to hire illegal aliens?  Or how about this one:  If an injured employee is denied benefits in whole or in part, the employer loses their protection from legal action brought against them by the injured employee?

 CEOs get Golden Parachutes; working people get Golden Showers. 

 As a retired Michigan resident and still a taxpayer to the economy, this would be a great bill to get passed because of the fact that it would attract new business's in the state by some simple eliminations.

 I am appalled by the  people that are supposed to be representing me and my best interests. I have been injured  for over 20 yrs. and on Workers Comp.since 2001. My benefits have been cut in half and now they want to take them away. What is a person to do if they can't work? Starve or freeze to death? My employer knew of my injuries for years, but kept telling me there was nothing wrong. Then one day they told me I no longer had a job because my injuries were to bad, they had nothing I could do. Surgery was out of the question, it was, and I quote "beyond repair". Now you tell me who is the fraudlent party here? By the way, I never missed a day of work and always treated with the company Dr. so they could not say I was "crying wolf" just to collect sick pay. I just cryed alot of tears at work and suffered day and night. Thanks Repubs. I'll remember every one of you next time I vote. And those so called Democrates also. We just ousted one Republican, hope we can do the same for more.  And the Democrates (if thats what you can honestly call yourself) that went along with this bill, I wish the same for you. Hope your all in my shoes one day so you can choke on your own medicine.

 I know of many, many people who are scamming the system on workmens comp. that it is now getting to be pathetic!  We have everything in place for factual and proof positive comp. cases, it is the ones who are "gaming the system" on the taxpayers dime that this legislation is all about.  Nothing else! 

 You couldn't be more mistaken, Tater.  This legislation affects anyone that files a claim for a work-related injury or ilness, not just those that are trying to scam the system.   First of all, the taxpayer's don't pay ANYTHING to injured workers; the Employers, or more often, their insurance companies, pay all benefits. 

This legislation is all about limiting the Employee's ability to file a bona-fide claim, obtain an accurate diagnosis and receive timely and appropriate treatment.  It's all about allowing Employers to determine who will and will not receive workers' compensation benefits and for those that do manage to obtain benefits, it's all about the Empoyers paying less by contracting with unskilled and inappropriate practitioners who agree to do and say exactly what the employers tell them to do or say.  I spent 12 years on a W/Comp advisory committee at the state level and have seen more than my share of employers and insurance companies doing their best to limit or competely dodge their legal and moral liablities while their employee's lives and families are destroyed.. 

Maybe a solution would be, in cases where the causal relationship to the employment has been established, mis-diagnosis by an employer-mandated practitioner OR treatment, lack of treatment, inappropriate treatment, or unreasonable treatment rendered by, or ordered by, the employer-mandated practitioner that exascerbates the underlying injury/illness/disability will be the responsibility of the Employer.  The Employee, Employee's Representative, or the Employee's heirs will have the right to sue the Employer outside the worker's comensation system for all medical expenses related to the condition for as long as the Employee has or had that condition and may also pusue punitive and other compensatory damages.  What people tend to forget is currently Employees are barred from taking any legal action aganst their Employers for work related conditions.  If Employers want to limit one's options, they should be willing, and it's only fitting, to also accept the responsibilities for the outcomes.

They also want to reduce the weekly wage replacement benefit by the amount the employee COULD COLLECT from a pension or other retirement investment vehicle if he or she simply retired.  My pension plan begins paying benefits to retired members at age 50, like about $50 to $75 a week.  Now, if I rupture a disk in my back at work, have it surgically repaired, and with proper rehab I get back to work in 9 months, you think I should have my weekly comp payment (which isn't a whole lot to start with) REDUCED by that amount I could have received from my pension plan???  That's simply ridiculous since I'm only 52 and have no intention of retiring on $200 a month when I'm perfectly capable of continuing to work!!

Lastly, it's the Bureau of Workers' Disability Compensation's responsibility to oversee the system, make sure claims for benefits are valid, and resolve disputes in a reasonable and timely manner and within the guidelines of the law.  If you or anyone is caught scamming the system, they should have to pay restitution and be subject to prison time.  I hope you've reported those many, many scammers that you personally know, otherwise, you're part of the problem. 

 

Until we'll have a more equitable system we'll just have to be satisfied with this one. It doesn't sound fair to me for the taxpayers to pay for the employee compensations, I don't know how they got the this idea in the first place. I am glad it's not the case for the New Jersey Workers Compensation Insurance system, they kept their equity as it should be.

Senator Young, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No. 5002 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Young’s statement is as follows:
I would like to start with a quote: “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” —Abraham Lincoln
I rise to offer my “no” vote explanation for this legislation because the changes made violate certain protections guaranteed in the United States Constitution. Worker’s compensation is a legally-mandated exchange between workers and employers. Workers give up among other rights like their Seventh Amendment right to a trial, while an employee can obtain unlimited damages for pain or suffering. In exchange, the employer agrees to provide certain wage replacement and prompt medical benefits to employees injured in the course of employment. This trade-off between the insured, limited coverage and lack of recourse outside the worker’s compensation system is known as the compensation bargain.
With changes enacted in this bill, specifically the requirement for a transferable skill analysis, we have tipped the balance necessary to abrogate the worker’s Seventh Amendment right to a trial. The transferable skill analysis, an evaluation that typically costs multiple thousands of dollars, is effectively creating a barrier to accessing the worker’s compensation system. When an injured worker no longer has the certainty for wage replacement and prompt medical treatment, then the compensation bargain has been broken. Therefore, this bill is unconstitutional.
I swore on my oath to uphold the Constitution of both the state of Michigan and the United States of America. In other words, we should be more committed to the workers than we are. I personally think we have shown as much commitment to the working people of Michigan as Kim Kardashian showed in her marriage. I think it is embarrassing. I think it is shameful. To uphold my oath, I must vote against this bill, and I urge all of you to do the same. I leave you with this: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.” We must not allow the Constitution and its principles to die in our heart. I say let’s vote against this bill, and let us preserve the freedoms and emancipation that our Constitution provides for this state and for the United States of America.

Senators Gleason, Gregory and Young asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows:
This situation that I am talking about was given full consideration through the insurance process. The Michigan Supreme Court had a component that was known as the Gang of Four. The Gang of Four made a decision to take this man’s van away from him. This was a judicial decision, and it needs to be handled legislatively now. There has been a precedent set. When they took Ron Wilmers’ van from Lapeer, Michigan, they set a precedent. I think they fully intend to uphold that. I think we ought to utilize the legislative branch of our state government and say we feel that if somebody is working and if somebody is hurt or loses their legs and they cannot use a common vehicle, they need an accessible van, and I think our state ought to provide that. 

We are asking people today to make decisions based on future employment opportunities regardless of their conditions, with a few exemptions. I think we ought to make every opportunity to give Michigan workers every chance to go to work. We shouldn’t be picking on people who became paralyzed through their active work. This was a horrendous decision, and it should be overturned. We can do that legislatively. We can overturn this, and I think we should do that today. This is a vitally important piece of legislation. Let’s be on the side of the paralyzed people and not on the side of a Supreme Court decision that is really hurtful to a very small constituency in our state. Let’s tell Ron Wilmers in Lapeer, Michigan, that he matters.

Senator Gregory’s statement is as follows:
I am presenting this amendment to the bill before us that would make a person’s retiree health care dependent on the stock market. We all know that this is now something where you would be investing in. As anyone who has observed the market’s stomach-turning volatility since 2008 knows, some people who retired during that period saw half of their nest eggs wiped out. Similarly, people on fixed incomes have not had their health care at risk when a recession hits, and they are already struggling. There are no second chances in retirement, and seniors should not be worrying about whether they should have to choose between health care or paying their heating bills.
The amendment that I am offering would say that the money the employee invests in this system will be guaranteed by the state. If the stock market crashes or goes 90 percent belly up, they have put in $50,000 of their own money and the state will then make sure they receive their $50,000 back. I believe that is the least that we can do to guarantee our employees some sort of semblance of payments for health care that they won’t have otherwise. While this amount may not go very far, I feel it is the right and fair thing to do. I ask my colleagues for their support.

Senator Young’s statement is as follows:
I would like to start with a quote: “Law should not rest on the simple will of the majority, but on the eternal foundation of righteousness.” A great President once said that. My amendment basically removes the requirement that an employee’s perception of actual events be grounded in reality for mental disability to be compensable. Let me give you an example: If I am having a conversation with another employee and all of a sudden out of nowhere a guy comes and shoots the person I am having a conversation with, I am mentally distraught. I may not be able to go back to work. This legislation basically says since I wasn’t the person who was shot, I can’t participate in worker’s compensation, and I have to go back to work. I think that is wrong. I think it is sinister. I think we need to take out that sort of justice and vanquish this beast before it feasts on the working people of Michigan.

 Senator Young:

 

Workmens Comp. has absolutely nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution as written.  You and your socialist Obama-lites should start the long and needed period of weaning yourself off of the drugs you are taking that interfere with sound mind and thought.

 Mr. Salad,

WORKER'S Comp (not Workmens Comp) has everything to do with both the U.S. Constitution and the Michigan Constitution.  The Seventh Amendment of the former and Section 14 of the latter both guarantee a trial by jury for anyone seeking monetary damages.  Worker's Comp denies those rights to those that suffer an occupational injury or disease and Worker's Comp is the exclusive remedy for those injured employees.  In return, the employer has to pay wage-loss benefits and all necessary and appropriate medical costs.  Senator Young feels that House Bill 5002 violates that understanding and erodes the injured employees ability to obtain those benefits to the extent that it is unconstitutional.  It will be interested to see what the AG has to say about it.  Bringing that point to the floor of the senate certainly doesn't warrant your denigration of Senator Young.  With all due respect, Mr Potato Head, we would appreciate it if you could find another topic to comment on, preferably one you know something about or at least have the initiative to do the research necessary to post rational and reasonably intelligent comments.  

 

Hey there, thank you for the updates on this, kind of appreciate it. Chris Harris Workers Compensation Board

Appreciate the updates. Gajan Dave NCCI Codes

If people hadn't gamed the system provided for them by companies, corporations and present law, this would all be a mute issue.