NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Donald T. DeCarlo announced the publication of AMCOMP’s new comprehensive text book Workers Compensation: The First 100 Years. The book is authored by Donald T. DeCarlo, AMCOMP’s Founder and Chairman and Roger Thompson. DeCarlo was previously a Partner at Lord Bissell & Brook, LLP and former Senior Vice President and General Counsel of The Travelers Insurance. Prior to retiring, Thompson was also a former Travelers executive.

“Since its inception, AMCOMP has embarked upon a designation program, Certified Workers Comp Professional (WCP), where members can maintain and enhance their knowledge base in this very specific industry.”

According to DeCarlo, “Since its inception, AMCOMP has embarked upon a designation program, Certified Workers Comp Professional (WCP), where members can maintain and enhance their knowledge base in this very specific industry.” DeCarlo continued “Previously, various reference materials were used in our designation program to capture the most important issues in the industry that require a trained and educated professional to navigate their way through the system. I am happy to say that AMCOMP has now authored its own text book, Workers Compensation: The First 100 Year, which incorporates all of the relevant information needed to further the workers comp professional. The book will be used as the new course of study for our WCP designation. Moreover, this text will also be used for a Workers Comp Certificate Program offered by The Center For Professional Education at St. John’s School of Risk Management, Insurance and Actuarial Science beginning with the Fall Semester.” The Course at The Center will be taught by DeCarlo and Thomas A. Nowak, Senior Vice President of Chartis Insurance.

AMCOMP’s designation was tailored to develop a foundation of knowledge of the various aspects of workers compensation so that those who complete the course are expected to have a more enhanced understanding of how all the various pieces including law, claims handling, reinsurance, and risk management, underwriting and pricing of work together.

DeCarlo concluded, “AMCOMP is committed to maintaining an up-to-date understanding of the latest issues that relate to the workplace. Such an understanding is shared with field professionals through newsletters, annual meetings and seminars. To date, there are more than 150 individuals enrolled in AMCOMP’s education program, many of whom have already received their WCP designation.”

For more information or to apply for membership, call Maria Sclafani, AMCOMP’s Executive Director, at 718-892-0228.

Aug. 5 (Westlaw Journals) – The widow of a New York State Police forensic scientist who committed suicide after his employer launched an investigation into the accuracy of his test results may be entitled to collect workers’ compensation death benefits, a state appeals court has ruled.

The Supreme Court Appellate Division reversed a Workers’ Compensation Board finding that Gary Veeder’s death did not occur in the course of his employment.

The board barred the widow’s claim because the police department’s decision to investigate Veeder’s work was “a lawful personnel decision involving an investigation, and potential disciplinary action” and was taken in good faith, the panel said.

Veeder was at the center of a 2008 scandal involving inaccurate or undocumented test results at the New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center, where his job involved analyzing fibers in connection with criminal cases.

According to the opinion, an April 2008 reaccreditation process turned up inconsistencies in proficiency tests that Veeder performed.  After the police department met with him and his supervisors to discuss the inconsistencies, Veeder eventually admitted he had been skipping a step in the test analysis procedure, the opinion said.

After the police department subsequently launched a “nonconforming work inquiry,” Veeder stopped coming to work and killed himself several weeks later, in May 2008.

A New York State Inspector General’s report issued after Veeder’s death found problems with nearly a third of the 322 cases he had worked on between 1993 and 2008.

The report also faulted the police department for conducting a “flawed internal inquiry.”

Investigators had “summarily dismissed” Veeder’s claims that his misconduct was the result of inadequate training and supervision, the report noted.

WORK-RELATED STRESS

Veeder’s wife, Donna, filed for workers’ compensation death benefits, claiming that her husband’s depression and suicide were the direct result of “improper actions” taken by the police department during its investigation.

The workers’ compensation judge disallowed the claim, and the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed.

Donna turned to the Appellate Division, which reversed and remanded.

Section 2(7) of the New York Workers’ Compensation Law does not recognize an “injury” that is purely mental and based on work-related stress caused by a disciplinary action, the appeals court said.

The evidence was insufficient to support the board’s finding that the police department’s actions were part of a “disciplinary action,” the panel said.

In addition one of Gary Veeder’s supervisors testified that no disciplinary action had been underway during the police department investigation and that the meetings with Veeder were “strictly a part of the police department’s quality review process.”

On remand, the board must also address the police department’s alternative argument that its actions amounted to an evaluation of Veeder’s work under the compensation law and that the stress he experienced was no greater than that ordinarily found in the work environment.

Veeder v. New York State Police Department et al., No. 511128, 2011 WL 2713850 (N.Y. App. Div., 3d Dep’t July 14, 2011).

A New York judge has denied American International Group Inc.’s bid to compel a California-based workers compensation insurance buyer into arbitration in an increasingly common type of dispute pitting policyholders against insurers.

More policyholders across the country are challenging workers comp insurers over whether contract dispute resolution clauses typically contained in side agreements can force employers to settle disagreements in New York or forums other than where the employers primarily conduct business, according to policyholder attorneys.

Policyholder attorneys say the clauses attempt to compel employers into forums favoring insurers.

“There definitely has been an uptick in policyholder willingness to challenge these arbitration agreements and spend some money doing it,” said Alex D. Hardiman, a partner at Anderson Kill & Olick P.C., who represented the employer in the recently decided case of National Union Fire Insurance Co. et al. vs. Source One Staffing L.L.C.

National Union is a unit of New York-based AIG, which declined to comment.

The Aug. 1 ruling involved a dispute over collateral for a large deductible policy purchased by Irwindale, Calif.-based Source One Staffing, Mr. Hardiman said.

New York Supreme Court Judge Eileen Bransten ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act does not pre-empt California’s insurance code, because the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act leaves insurance taxation and regulation to the states and trumps the FAA.

Arbitration override

That issue is central to the case, because the insurer provided Source One with a payment agreement that stated that all disputes arising under the agreement are subject to arbitration only in a New York court.

But the employer argued that the arbitration and forum selection clauses were invalid because California law requires all workers comp policies, including payment agreements, to be filed with the California Insurance Department, and the insurer had failed to do so.

The insurer argued, though, that the payment agreement is not a policy under California’s insurance code, so it did not have to be filed with the state’s Insurance Department. National Union also argued that when a party to a contract containing an arbitration clause disputes the validity of the contract, the FAA dictates that the issue of validity is arbitrable and that the FAA pre-empts state insurance code.

While the judge denied AIG’s petition to compel arbitration, it also granted the insurer 20 days to amend its petition regarding whether the payment agreement constitutes an insurance policy.

Nick Roxborough, a policyholder attorney at Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani L.L.P. in Los Angeles, said he hopes the ruling will affect other pending cases where employers have “made all the same arguments” as those heard by Judge Bransten. He said he intends to raise the ruling in another New York court hearing a very similar case in which he represents a policyholder involved in a dispute with AIG, as well as in a case in California.

Meanwhile, related legislation that would require workers comp insurers to disclose to employers that challenges to a dispute resolution or arbitration clause may be heard in a venue outside of California is moving its way through California’s Legislature.

Senate Bill 684, sponsored by the California Department of Insurance, has been passed out of the Senate, as well as Assembly committees.

The measure would require insurers to notify employers “contemporaneously with a written quote” that such a clause exists.

The bill also would require insurers to notify policyholders that any dispute resolution language is negotiable, according to a California Assembly analysis of SB 684.

Employers have complained that insurers regularly include dispute-resolution language in side agreements, or agreements that are delivered to policyholders only after a policy contract has been agreed upon.

California’s bill is expected to reach Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk, and enactment would narrow the number of disputes similar to the recent case involving Source One Staffing, Mr. Roxborough said.

He was wounded and driving his car on the outer border of control, possibly looking for help or to flee danger. She was doing what children do on a sizzling Saturday night in Brooklyn, lolling outside her building with friends.

Do You Think Working at Ground Zero Caused This Guy’s Cancer?

• 25 votes
• Read all 16 opinions
• View Results

You!

Join the discussion. Share your opinion with millions!