Mo. governor signals compromise on workers’ comp

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — About six weeks after he vetoed legislation that would have changed the state’s workers’ compensation system, Missouri’s Democratic governor is signaling that he would be open to compromise with Republican lawmakers.

In a letter to Senate leaders obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday, Gov. Jay Nixon indicated he would sign legislation that would prevent employees from suing their co-workers for on-the-job injuries. The governor also said he would support a provision to the system to include deadly diseases contracted on the job.

The Republican-controlled Legislature passed similar legislation earlier this year, but Nixon vetoed the measure in mid-March. The governor said then that moving occupational diseases to the workers’ compensation system — instead of allowing such cases to be resolved in court — would take away workers’ ability to be adequately paid for diseases that could ultimately take their life.

But in his letter, Nixon said he would be willing to sign a new version of the legislation if lawmakers meet certain conditions. For example, he said workers with terminal diseases caused by workplace exposure to toxic substances should receive a higher payment than other workers who are permanently and completely disabled. Nixon also said lawmakers should also broaden the definition of heirs who receive payments after the worker dies from an occupational disease.

“As our economy continues to grow, we must remove the uncertainty surrounding these issues for both employers and workers and keep our state moving forward,” Nixon wrote.

With three weeks left in the legislative session, lawmakers are currently considering several pieces of legislation to replace the bill Nixon vetoed. The most likely avenue is to insert the governor’s new proposals into a House-passed measure that could be debated in the Senate this week.

The Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which had strongly supported the original legislation, said Tuesday that Nixon’s compromise position is acceptable to them.

“These cases are real, they’re expensive and the issue of ensuring the exclusive remedy within workers’ compensation for co-employee liability and occupational diseases is well worth what we are seeing put forward as an enhanced remedy for occupational disease,” said Rich AuBuchon, the general counsel for the chamber.

Under current law, people who are permanently and totally disabled receive weekly payments equal to two-thirds of their weekly income at the time of their injury, provided that amount is not more than 105 percent of the state’s average weekly wage. The state’s average weekly wage as of July 2011 was about $773.08 per week, according to the state’s labor department.

That means the maximum weekly benefit for the totally and permanently disabled is currently about $811.73 per week.

AuBuchon said the governor’s office has proposed raising the weekly payment for people affected by toxic workplace exposures to 200 percent of the worker’s weekly income, though the maximum cap would not change.

A spokesman for Nixon would not immediately elaborate Tuesday about the details of the governor’s proposal. Calls to some Senate Democrats who had spoken out against moving occupational diseases into the workers’ compensation system were also not immediately returned.

But Herb Johnson, secretary-treasurer of the Missouri AFL-CIO, said his group might support legislation that includes Nixon’s proposal. The union had previously spoken against measures to move occupational diseases into the state program.

Johnson said he had not yet read the governor’s letter, but said the group might support the change depending on how much the workers’ compensation system would ultimately pay the sickened workers.

“In essence, we’re after something that’s fair and takes care of the worker and their surviving family as much as possible,” he said.

Current law also makes a spouse or dependent child eligible to receive a benefit after the ill worker dies. AuBuchon said Nixon would like to expand the heirs eligible to receive the benefit, and said the details of that provision are still being worked out.

____

Workers’ compensation bill is HB1403.

Online:

Legislature: http://www.moga.mo.gov

http://cbsn.ws/JOutXO

This week’s legal resources you might have missed: Sept. 26 – 30

At Smith Coonrod Mohlman, LLC. we enjoy keeping up with the latest legal news and sharing it with you. We firmly believe that is important to keep up with industry happenings because it is just one more way that we can help you. This week’s stories touch on legal news on both local and national levels. Deadly cantaloupe, wrongful birth lawsuits, the Dead Red law in Kansas, and BP execs (we’re not finished with them yet) were some of the topics gracing legal headlines this week. We welcome your opinions and discussion!

1. Cantaloupe death toll continues to rise. On Monday the death toll from a contaminated crop of cantaloup was at eight people. As of Thursday, the CDC has reported at least 16 deaths from the listeria traced to Colorado fruits and expects it will continue to rise. Until this is resolved, do not eat cantaloupe  if you do not know where it came from.

2. Wrongful birth malpractice lawsuit results in a $4.5 million settlement. A Florida recently awarded $4.5 million to the parents of a baby born with no arms and only one leg. The couple alleged that it was medical negligence that prevented from them learning of the debilitation early enough to terminate the pregnancy.

3. The color red generally means stop, unless you’re on a bike in Kansas.  The Dead Red law in Kansas allows bicycles and motorcycles to continue through a red light if the light does not turn green in a “reasonable” amount of time. This wording is vague- what is reasonable? Will cyclists and bikers obey a “reasonable” amount of time?

4. Lawsuits filed against top English BP executives have been dismissed in favor of an English forum. Waves of litigation spilled in (no pun intended here) after the Deepwater Horizon incident in April 2010. However, these suits primarily involving English execs at an English corporation will not go forward in US courts. An English forum will be more appropriate for litigation.

 

 

The week’s essential Business Law resources that you may have missed. (November 1– November 5)

Smith/Coonrod works hard to make sure you are up to date and informed on Legal Industry News. Your opportunity to read industry articles on our Smith/Coonrod WordPress blog for this week are right here.

This week, we focused on business law, and how to prepare yourself for all sorts of business situations. The first step? Contact Smith Coonrod. http://smithcoonrod.com

Here are some important resources you may have missed:

  • The Law Offices of Smith/Coonrod offers services in a wide range of business matters. More info here: http://goo.gl/SNxs
  • An example of a business law case: Apple Sues Motorola http://goo.gl/kK9O
  • When an Employer and an Employee Settle an Employment-Related Dispute, What is Included in the Settlement Agreement? http://goo.gl/qrP6
  • Just a guide, but an interesting one: Legal Handbook for Early Stage Business http://goo.gl/yJmCZ
  • Congratulations to The LexisNexis Top Business Law Blog of 2010 http://goo.gl/fb/rkPIa #Legal [INDUSTRY]

Also: What exactly is business law?

Business law and litigation is the area of law that provides assistance in the preparation and presentation of a lawsuit or other resort to determine a legal question or matter in business situations.

BONUS:

How Lawyers May Use Social Media in the Future – http://on.mash.to/a9RP3S

Check back each Friday for the top legal news of the week.

Business Buyer Beware

Every business owner or prospective business owner who is contemplating buying a franchise needs to be very wary of entering into such an arrangement without adequate professional assistance to evaluate whether it is, in fact, a beneficial arrangement. The recent Brooke Insurance bankruptcy, and the events leading up to that, serves to demonstrate this point. Over three years ago our firm was hired to represent a Brooke franchisee in Florida who had purchased a Brooke franchise and borrowed money from a sister company of Brooke to finance the purchase. In spite of being a seasoned insurance professional, the agent, under the constraints of the Brooke system, could not make a sufficient income to pay the debt service and the expenses necessary to keep the office open. Our firm was able to negotiate a buy back of the agency allowing the agent to get out of debt and actually walk away with some additional cash. What followed was three years of representing Brooke agents from around the country who had similar, if not identical, problems.

While the problems these agents encountered may have been unique to the Brooke system and would not be general issues faced by all franchisees, there were a lot of “red flags” in the agency documents that a competent legal advisor should have been able to see and advise the prospective franchisee of the consequences of such an arrangement. While your attorney, accountant, etc can point out these potential problems only you can make the decision as to whether or not you are comfortable with the arrangement. It is the job of the hired professional to make you aware of these concerns but, of course, in some instances the business person will decide he is willing to take the risks involved in spite of these potential issues.

Some of the “red flags” that might be of some concern to a potential franchise owner include inadequate access to financial information, both regarding the overall franchise system as well as the actual franchise itself. In the Brooke system, for example, the insurance carrier paid all commissions directly to Brooke who then took out their portion and remitted the balance to the franchisee. This was done with entirely inadequate backup documentation and the franchisee was often unable to tell without extensive additional research whether the amount remitted was correct. Brooke made it difficult if not impossible for the franchisee to review the record of commission payments by the insurance carrier to ensure that the payments remitted by Brooke were correct.

Some of the other factors that might make you question the wisdom of entering into such an arrangement include financing of the franchise purchase by the franchisor or a related entity, whether the franchisor or related entity is the party that does the due diligence for the transaction (often for an additional fee), whether the franchisor “helps” you locate an attorney to issue an opinion letter as to the details of the transaction. Look closely at what specific support the franchisor promises to give. Often these obligations are vague or specify that the support will be that which the franchisor determines is appropriate. That doesn’t give you much of a basis for insisting that they give you any assistance at all. There are a number of other such concerns that may arise in such agreements that your attorney or other professional can point out and on which they can give you advice.

It is normal to be excited by what one sees as a great opportunity. Most of us have made a purchase or entered into a contract in spite of concerns that it might not be the wisest course just because we really want to do it. Obviously that is not the best course of action when an investment of your time and money is involved. In spite of your enthusiasm for a business venture take a step back, hire the necessary competent professionals and seriously consider what the ramifications of entering into the agreement really are.

At The Law Offices of Smith/Coonrod we are happy to assist you in any business transaction and will work with other professionals of your choosing, or which can recommend, to ensure that you get the best possible advice and counsel BEFORE entering into a new business venture.