Quote:

Originally Posted by ColoVet I just got a letter from the insurance company that over sees my work comp injury. They are trying to make me do another IME when I just did one 3 months ago. Why? Because this doctor like all the rest said I'm injured and it's work related. Has anyone else had this problem? I've been on work comp for over 13 year now and had 7 IME's. They continually change attorneys and each does the same steps the others did. The insurance company for Choice Hotels is Gallagher and Basset and they are total jerks. We've been to court many times and each time we win. The last time the judge said he didn't care what the name of what I have is...it's work related. You'd think that would end this wouldn't you? They could have settled with me 10 times over with all the money they have wasted trying to get me off WC, the PI, the IME's and the rest of the crap.

06-30-2009, 01:35 PM
wv transplant
Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5

Re: Bad Faith Law Suit Against Workmans Comp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Quoting smackman
I had a "bad faith" lawsuit in Louisiana; I was totally denied surgery to the point that my Thoracic Vertebrate that was split in half healed abnormally.

I lost! We appealed to the state court and lost. In Louisiana, WC has a "umbrella" of protection over them called NO CAUSE OF ACTION which simply means WC can do what they want in Louisiana as long as it does not kill you.
Colorado is probably and hopefully different.
I will send you a PM to look at.

p.s. 2 1/2 YEARS LATER, T12 vertebrate was removed,replaced with a titanium cage, screws and bolts, bone was grafted in the cage from one of my Ribs for the fusion.

Im sorry that you had to go through that. I have done alot of research and Colorado seems to be pretty tough when it comes to bad faith. My lawyer told me that they will settle before we go to trial. this is not his first time in dealing with bad faith against this workers comp insurance company. He has a d_a_m_n good record in dealing with them

June 11, 2009

Kauai Trial Court Finds Workers' Compensation Carrier's Delayed Payment in Bad Faith

In our last post [http://www.insurancelawhawaii.com/in...e_law_hawaii/] we discussed a decision from the Oklahoma Supreme Court recognizing a bad faith claim against a workers' compensation insurer. My Damon Key colleague and fellow blogger, Mark Murakami http://www.hawaiilawyer.com/atty/mmm/mmm.htm) (hawaiioceanlaw.com), informed me of a similar case winding its way through the trial court on Kauai. See Ordonez v. Hawaii Employers Mutual Ins. Co., Civil No. 060138 (Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit, State of Hawaii). The Pacific Business News reported on the case here http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacif...2/daily55.html in January. The case was also recently reported by the Advocates Research Company.

In Ordonez, the decedent was killed on January 4, 2005, when her all-terrain vehicle, used by her employer to check hiking trails, overturned. Decedent was survived by her indigent mother, a resident of Venezuela. A workers' compensation claim for full dependency benefits was filed on Plaintiff's behalf with Hawaii Employers Mutual Insurance Company (HEMIC).

HEMIC contested the claim and refused payment. After a hearing in January 2006, the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations ordered that full dependency benefits be paid. The Department found HEMIC had delayed making payments for more than a year without reasonable basis for doing so. After payment was made, Plaintiff sued HEMIC for bad faith in its delay in making payments.

After a trial, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were issued on April 9, 2009. The court ruled HEMIC had sufficient information in January 2005 to determine the decedent's death was compensable. The delay in acknowledging the claim was unreasonable and violated established industry standards for good faith and fair dealing. The court further found HEMIC's motivation in denying Plaintiff's claim was to delay payment so the statute of limitations would expire and HEMIC could escape ever making payment. Plaintiff was awarded $75,000 in general damages and $250,000 in punitive damages.

Based on the on-line docket sheet, it appears that judgment has not yet been entered. HEMIC informed the Pacific Business News that it was considering an appeal.