Posted by Douglas Maser - Tuesday, January 8, 2008
On December 20, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court took the unusual step of “revisiting” its previous holding in Coolidge vs. Riverdale Local School District (2003), 100 Ohio St.3d 14, and limiting its application to teachers under collective bargaining agreements. In Bickers vs. W & S Life Ins. Co. (2007) 2007-Ohio-6751, the Ohio Supreme Court held that no common law action exists for the wrongful discharge in violation of public policy for an employee who is terminated while receiving workers’ compensation, but that a discharged employee may still have a cause of action for retaliatory discharge under R.C. 4123.90 which remains the exclusive statutory remedy for employees claiming wrongful termination in violation of rights provided by Ohio’s Workers’ Compensation Act.
The Supreme Court, at page 4 of the Bickers opinion, limited “Coolidge to holding that terminating a teacher for absences due to a work related injury while the teacher is receiving workers’ compensation benefits is a termination without ‘good and just cause’ under R.C. 3319.16.” The Court specifically stated that because Bickers was not a teacher protected by a collective bargaining agreement under R.C. 3319.16, Bickers could not allege a wrongful discharge claim in reliance on Coolidge. And most tellingly for employers, the Supreme Court definitively went on to state, “Coolidge does not create a cause of action for an at-will employee who is terminated for non-retaliatory reasons while receiving workers’ compensation.” The Supreme Court further confirmed that employers may still not retaliate against employees for pursuing a workers’ compensation claim under R.C. 4123.90.
At first blush, many employers would like to read this decision, or one of the many synopses being provided by various law firms, or even these words, restores to employers the unquestionable right to discharge at-will employees.
Don’t.
If the issue of discharge of an employee arises while the employee is receiving workers’ compensation benefits, or even while the employee is not receiving benefits, but has an open claim, an employer should consult with legal counsel prior to discharging the employee. Employers should then contact their workers’ compensation third party administrator to discuss any possible implication the discharge may have on the claims administration of the employee’s claim(s). The recent holding in Bickers may, or may not, be applicable to an employee’s situation under consideration.
Share This
Posted by Douglas Maser - Monday, November 19, 2007
On Wednesday, November 14th, a first in BWC history took place in the BWC’s auditorium in Columbus, Ohio. For over three hours, sixty (60) employers and trade association representatives appeared before the members of the BWC Board of Directors’ Actuary Committee to offer public comment and input to the members of the Board in attendance. One Hundred Fifteen (115) additional witnesses submitted written testimony only. The Committee had requested public testimony in response to the BWC Administrator’s proposal to decrease the maximum available credibility discount to employers in the Ohio group rating program from 90% to 80%. BWC alleges group-rated companies are actuarially being subsidized by non-group-rated companies by an estimated $200 million a year. At the September board meeting, at the request of the Administrator, the Board had referred the matter to the Actuary Committee for study and to recommend a maximum discount percentage.
(Continued)
Share This
Posted by John Motil - Monday, October 15, 2007
There are many changes presently being considered by the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC). Perhaps the most impacting for Ohio employers are the changes being discussed regarding private employer group rating programs.
If you are presently in a group rating program receiving the maximum 90% discount and assuming you continue to qualify for group rating, you may find the maximum discount reduced to 85% or even lower.
What might this mean in terms of dollars and cents?
Let us assume your undiscounted premium is $5,000. A 90% discount would result in paid premiums of $500. An 85% discount would result in paid premiums of $750 or a 50% increase in premium.
There is strong consideration being given to reducing the maximum discount to around 65% in possibly a few years or less.
An employer who was receiving a 90% discount and a premium of $500 would now pay $1,750 or a 350% increase in premiums.
Another change the BWC is considering is to require employers who ordinarily would be removed from group rating because of higher claim costs to stay in the group program for possibly up to three years. This change would cause all other members of the group program to absorb the increased costs of those employers required to stay in the group. Presently there are approximately 100,000 Ohio employers in group rating programs. It is my opinion that over time fewer employers will qualify for group rating or will explore other funding arrangements such as retrospective rating or self insurance in order to keep costs suppressed and avoid the volatility associated with group rating.
No matter what final decisions the BWC makes, two things remain constant regarding controlling workers’ compensation costs. Safety programs must be in place to avoid injuries and proactive claims management strategies must be employed. Ensuring these components are in place puts your organization in the best position to control costs.
Share This