Unions file suit over workers' comp reforms

The suit, filed Nov. 30 in Cole County Circuit Court, says that the workers’ compensation system was created to give employees and employers a way to determine appropriate payment for job-related injuries without assigning blame to either party.

The plaintiffs, including local chapters of the Teamsters, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Communications Workers of America, say the changes made by the passage of Senate Bill 1 earlier this year would cripple the system, denying legitimate claims of injured workers.

There are nine counts in the suit, filed as Missouri Alliance for Retired Americans et al. v. Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, including violations of the constitutions of Missouri and the United States related to due process and discrimination based on age and pre-existing conditions.

Jim Kabell, head of Teamsters Union Local 245 said if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, he hopes it will lead to an injunction against the reforms in SB 1.

The reforms are substantial:

• A work accident must now be the prevailing factor in an injury to be covered; the previous law only required the accident to be a “substantial” factor.

• Injuries in company-owned automobiles going to or from work are not compensable.

• If a safety violation results in injury, benefits can be reduced by up to 50 percent, even if the violation was not willful.

“If there are fixes that need to be made, they should be made, but employer and employee rights should be looked at collectively,” Kabell said.

“What we think happened this past year was that it was such a one-sided affair in the state legislature that everything in this bill was an employer-driven issue, and there has to be both sides represented.”

Dan Mehan, president of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which spearheaded the legislation, said this case is just a continuation of the arguments that were happening when the bill was moving through the state legislature.

“The reason there was such strong support for reforming workers’ compensation in Missouri is because there were problems with the system,” Mehan said.

“SB 1 addressed those, and we think it did a very thorough job of doing that. The side that’s bringing the lawsuit is the side that was against that, and it’s backed by trial attorneys and organized labor.

“We stand by the reforms, we think they’re solid and they’ll pass muster,” he added.

As for the claim that the reforms prevent the workers’ compensation system from being a viable alternative to legal action, Mehan said that is a “concoction.”

“What (the reforms) have done is make Missouri more attractive and more competitive for jobs,” he said.

“The workers’ compensation system in Missouri is absolutely intact, and there’s nothing that would preclude an injured worker from seeking remedy through workers’ comp.”

Attorney Rebecca Tatlow, who practices primarily workers’ compensation law, said the system is still there, but it is probably more difficult for the worker.

“I think a lot more employees will need attorneys to navigate the system,” she said. “The judges are not allowed to give advice to employees, (and) employees are going to walk out scratching their heads, and most will need an attorney.”

Money issues

Kabell also said he and his fellow plaintiffs are not so sure that the system is going to save money for employers – one of the main arguments for the changes.

“I think what it does is it shifts the cost. If something is not covered under comp now, it will be covered under the medical (plan),” Kabell said.

“And it will drive up costs of health care under the medical plan that employers have. If an employee is injured and goes for treatment at a hospital, they’re going to be treated, and somebody’s going to pay that cost. It will affect the costs of normal health care for everyone,” he added.

Tatlow said the case does have some compelling arguments, including statements about one aspect of the law that allows payments to be reduced by up to 50 percent if an employee doesn’t follow safety procedures.

“It also did away with the requirement that the failure be willful; now it could just be accidental,” she said. “Before, the employers had to actively attempt to advise their workers about the safety rules.

“Now the burden has basically shifted to the employee. I think because that deals with the safety of the workers, it’s going to be a more persuasive argument.”

The suit seeks a declaratory judgment – a judgment by a court that determines the rights of the involved parties without ordering a specific action one way or another.

Tatlow said that usually can be done through a summary judgment, without the need for a jury trial.

She added that the case will probably end up in the Missouri Supreme Court, due to the constitutional issues raised in the suit.

No timeframe has been given for the next action on the case, but a date is expected to be set in the next 30 to 45 days.

Nine Counts

Missouri Alliance for Retired Americans et al. v. Department of Labor and Industrial Relations contains nine counts explaining how the recently enacted changes to Missouri workers’ compensation law.

Among the arguments made in the suit:

• The changes prevent the system from being a more certain, simpler and fault-free substitute for legal action, the reason the system was originally created;

• The law now excludes injuries resulting directly or indirectly from pre-existing conditions, thereby discriminating against those who are disabled but still able to work;

• Accidents occurring during travel to and from offices or job sites are now not compensable; and

• The law discriminates against older workers due to clauses about reduction of compensation due to “the natural process of aging.”