10 WAYS TO RUIN YOUR CLAIM WITH SOCIAL MEDIA

By Victoria Schneider of The Cooper Firm posted in Social Media on Tuesday, August 27, 2013. The Internet gives us access to much information. With social networking we can see what people are doing and sometimes even where they are located at an exact moment. Although this ability to see into people's lives may be useful, it can also be very dangerous. Not only can someone see the good things that someone is involved in, but they can also see the negative things. There are websites now created solely for the purpose of posting peoples mug shots after they have been arrested. There are also websites where you can see the location of sex offenders in your area. Just as you may use this resource, others will use social media to find out information about you. Posting anything on the internet can be permanent and damaging, so be very cautious of what you decide to post online. If you choose pursue a claim, you may be entitled to compensation under the law. Insurance companies may use information posted on the internet to harm your legitimate claim. Here are ten ways that may guarantee your claim is ruined from using social media: 1. Posting pictures of you dancing at a party after your injury. 2. Sharing how you had a blast running a 5k when your damages include an injured leg. 3. Being tagged in pictures that show you doing something illegal. 4. Writing on your friend's wall how about excited you are to go on a cruise now that you will have money from all your damages. 5. "Checking in" at La Fitness on Facebook when you are supposedly bedridden. 6. Posting before and after pictures of your accident on Facebook before you have talked to your lawyer. 7. Accepting a friend request from an Insurance Adjuster. 8. Posting a "selfie" on Instagram that shows your bruises and cast being off for a while. 9. Writing a detailed blog about your accident before seeking an attorney. 10. Tweeting about how you loved going skiing during your recovery period. Although some of the comments listed are humorous, there can be devastating consequences to your claim even if what you were to post or write seems harmless. A simple rule to follow is ALWAYS speak with an attorney before using social media if you are pursuing, or intend to pursue, a claim. http://www.mariettaaccidentattorneyblog.com/2013/08/10-ways-to-ruin-your-claim-with-social-media.shtml?utm_source=September+Newsletter+Online&utm_campaign=September+Email+Campaign&utm_medium=email

America's top 10 most dangerous jobs: Logging claims deadly title

By Leada Gore | lgore@al.com Think your job is tough? Just be glad it doesn't involve the word, "Timber!" New information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the deadliest jobs in America in 2012. There were 4,383 fatal work injuries in America last year, down from 4,693 in 2011. Here's a look at the most dangerous professions in America. The first figures shows the fatality rate based on the number of those who died per 100,000 full-time workers. The second number is actual deaths in 2012. 1. Logging workers - 127.8, 62 2. Fishers and related fishing workers - 117, 32 3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers - 53.4, 71 4. Roofers - 40.5, 70 5. Structural iron and steel workers - 37, 22 6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors - 27.1, 26 7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers - 23, 26 8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers -22.1, 741 9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers - 21.3, 216 10. Construction laborers - 17.4, 210 The report showed there were 81 fatal workplace injuries in Alabama last year: 28 due to transportation incidents; 20 for workplace violence or other injuries caused by people or animals; 20 for contact with objects and equipment; eight for falls; and 4 for exposure to harmful chemicals. How about federal workers? The most danger job for government employees, according to an analysis by Federal Times, is postal work. The analysis showed of 54 federal workers killed on the job in 2012, 18 were postal workers. The figures do not include military personnel.

Comedian Calls Out Progressive Insurance for Defending His Sister’s Killer; Progressive Responds in Heartless Robot Fashion

This is hard to believe.

Insurance Myth #9: “Insurance Companies Are People Too.”

There is a quaint notion that insurance companies make sound decisions based on personal interactions with policyholders. But, big insurance companies have become highly automated, able to rely on digital profiling to underwrite and set rates, proprietary databases to compile customer information, and black box logarithms to underpay claims. Neighborhood agents, trained appraisers, and experienced claims adjusters are seeing their influence wane. Indeed, without proper oversight, we could be entering a Brave New World where machines compile, crunch, and calculate complex datasets to dramatically limit human influence on key underwriting, rating, and claims handling decisions.

We value our privacy, but it’s growing harder and harder to protect ourselves as our information is sucked up, stored, and sold. In the field of insurance, carriers may move beyond claims histories – and even the controversial use of credit information – to summarily deem you a risk on the basis of your Facebook feed or penalize you for asking smart questions about your coverage. Technology makes this a rapidly changing space, and our public policy must stay ahead of the curve to ensure we are secure from unwanted intrusions and unfounded judgments that have a devastating financial impact on our future.

An entire industry has sprung up around collecting, analyzing, and selling personal information. One of the largest data aggregators, a company by the name of Acxiom, possesses data on half a billion people from around the world, including a whopping 96% of all Americans, with an average of 1,500 pieces of data on each person. Through a process known as data mining, companies like Axciom quietly amass details on a wide range of personal consumer information – everything from your Social Security number to your medications, finances, and web surfing habits. You are then profiled and segmented into one of 70 “clusters” within 21 “life stage groups.” Where you are pigeonholed on this limited spectrum may dictate if products and services are offered to you, and at what price. Weblining is the new redlining.

Insurance companies are figuring out how to get in on the act. Some insurers are looking at how to pry into your personal consumer data to guess about your risk level. The magazines you read, how much television you watch, and what type of purchases you make could determine whether a policy is offered to you, and how much you would have to pay for coverage. Your posts on Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking sites can be compiled into a social networking score by insurers, which could impact your premiums and coverage options. So, failing to keep up with Facebook’s ever-changing privacy settings could mean you pay more and get less. Early advice is to make a show of checking in on sites like Foursquare when you go the gym so that insurers see you are engaging in healthy behavior. The Big Brother tactics involved in data mining are a direct threat to our individual liberty.

If that isn’t bad enough, policyholders have to fear asking basic questions about their coverage lest their company overreact and count their inquiry as an actual claim. Insurers maintain comprehensive databases on claims – with records that reach back seven years. Our insurance marketplace is incredibly complex, and consumers should try to educate themselves about their coverage options. However, if you, as an informed consumer, call your company while shopping the market to ask if your policy would cover a particular peril, they may jump to the conclusion that you have suffered a loss and wrongly record it. As things stand today, anything you say to your insurance company can – and will – be used against you.

Finally, insurance companies now utilize proprietary software, like the program known as Colossus, to determine how much – or even whether – to pay on a claim. No longer are human beings making informed, big picture, common sense, final decisions about the damage that resulted from a car wreck. Experienced claims adjusters are overruled by computers. Data is plugged into a computer program that spits out a number on the other end. Even worse, the software can be manipulated or “tuned” by the insurance company to broadly underpay valid claims. Low balling victims is now as easy as pushing a button.

Gaping holes remain in our laws, and we must provide consumers with basic protections if our insurance market is to work for anyone but the carriers.

The Constitution protects us from spying by Big Government, but current federal laws are woefully inadequate to protect citizens from spying by Big Business. That means it is up to the states to guard their citizens’ personal information. The Texas Legislature must lead the charge to protect our liberty.

http://www.texaswatch.org/2012/08/insurance-myth-9-insurance-companies-are-people-too/ 

Snakebitten at Work!

The small southeastern town of Opp, Alabama is known for its annual Rattlesnake Rodeo.  Recently a worker in southwest Alabama was seriously injured after being bitten by a rattlesnake.  Obviously rattlesnakes are dangerous.  Does it benefit your employer if you try to remove a snake from your workplace?  It depends. Some will recall the words of Scripture, "The serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild animals the LORD God had made."  (Genesis 3:1)  A recent decision in an appeal of an Alabama workers' compensation claim involved a man who made a claim for benefits after suffering a serious injury while trying to catch a snake.   The case is styled Mercy Logging LLC v. Odom, Alabama Court of Civil Appeals Case No. 2101061 (decided July 27, 2012) Here is a brief synopsis of the case.  Johnnie Odom was a logger for more than 20 years. On September 24, 2009, he was working for Mercy Logging LLC and at the end of the day’s work, he and two co-workers were riding with their foreman back to where each of them had parked their vehicles at a gas station.  As they drove, the foreman noticed a diamondback rattlesnake in the road and he swerved the truck to try to run over the snake. One of the workers suggested they try to catch the snake rather than kill it. The foreman stopped the truck and one of the workers tried to catch the snake.  That worker apparently didn’t know how to catch a snake but Odom had caught as many as 100 snakes before so he took over. In the process, the large snake, measuring six fee three inches bit Odom on both hands.  Suffering serious injuries, Odom was in intensive care for 35 days and he now suffers disabling pain in his neck and back.  Odom sought workers’ compensation benefits and the court found him permanently and totally disabled.  The employer appealed.  On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed.  The Court’s rationale was that an injury is compensable when caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.  Courts have held that an injury arises in the course of employment when it occurs within the period of the employment, at a place where the employee may reasonably be, and while he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment or engaged in doing something incident to it.  Here, the employer provided transportation to its employees so Odom’s accident occurred within the period of his employment. The Court wrote that the more difficult question is whether Odom was “reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment or engaged in doing something incident to it”  when he was bit trying to catch the snake.  The fact that Odom’s foreman stopped the truck so the workers could catch the snake created an inference that the employer impliedly consented to the snake-catching.  However, the Court wrote that the implied-consent rationale is limited by the requirement that he employer must receives some direct or indirect economic benefit from the activity before it becomes part of the employment.  Odom suggested he was making the job site safer by catching and removing the snake.  However, the Court noted that even assuming the job site was benefited getting rid of one dangerous snake, the potential benefit was outweighed by the potential detriment to the employer that resulted from losing the services of a valued employee who might have been seriously injured while trying to catch the snake.  The Court also considered whether the injury arose out of his employment and noted the injury did not occur while Odom was in the woods or engaged in logging. “The snake on the roadway posed no risk—occupational or otherwise—to Odom so long as he remained in the vehicle in which he was riding. . . .”

Supreme Court reverses Court of Civil Appeals and holds that Court of Civil Appeals improperly reweighed evidence in workers’ compensation case.

Supreme Court — Civil

▼▼ Supreme Court reverses Court of Civil Appeals and holds that Court of Civil Appeals improperly reweighed evidence in workers’ compensation case.

APPEAL & ERROR: Appellate Review. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION: Causation. Windell Caldwell sued West Fraser, Inc., seeking workers’ compensation benefits for a back injury. At a hearing on that claim, Caldwell testi- fied that he was working on December 17, 2009, and he was assigned the task of replacing “knives” in a mulching ma- chine. In order to complete the task, Caldwell had to lift two boxes weighing 50-100 pounds and move a screen weighing 80 pounds. Caldwell claimed that he felt three “pinches” in his back as he attempted to complete the task. Caldwell contacted his wife, Rhonda, and she took him to an urgent care facility. The records from that visit contain a notation indicating that “no injury” was reported. On December 19, 2009, Caldwell went to the emergency room because of his back pain. Caldwell and Rhonda testified that they told the medical staff that Caldwell’s back pain was the re- sult of a work-related injury. The medical records indicate that Caldwell “denie[d] injury.” Caldwell went back to the urgent care facility on December 21, 2009. The medical re- cords from that date referenced an “injury [on] 12/17.” On December 22, 2009, Caldwell informed West Fraser, via a facsimile transmission from his counsel, that he had injured his back at work on December 17, 2009. Dr. David Scott, an orthopaedic surgeon who treated Caldwell, testified that his injuries were consistent with the lifting accident that Caldwell had described but that the injury could also have occurred in a number of ways. Caldwell’s supervisor testi- fied that when Caldwell left work on December 17, 2009, he said that he was experiencing back pain but that he did not say that the injury was work related. His coworker testi- fied that he was working near Caldwell on the date of the alleged injury and that he did not hear Caldwell say that he was injured. Caldwell had complained of back pain in the past. The trial court held that Caldwell had suffered a com- pensable injury and awarded him benefits accordingly. West Fraser appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that although Caldwell presented “some” evidence indicating that he injured his back at work, “that evidence does not amount to substantial evidence.” West Fraser, Inc. v. Caldwell, [Ms. 2100696, January 13, 2012] ___ So.3d ___ (Ala. 2012)[21 ALW 4-3]. The Supreme Court grant- ed certiorari review. Reversed. The decision of the Court of Civil Appeals conflicts with the decision in Ex parte McInish, 47 So.3d 767 (Ala. 2008)[17 ALW 37-9], which states that an appellate court cannot reweigh the evidence presented at trial. In this case, the Court of Civil Appeals relied upon cases that are factually distinguishable from the case at bar. “We conclude from our review of the totality of the evidence, which admittedly reveals some inconsis- tencies in the evidence, that the trial court’s determination that Caldwell’s injury is compensable is supported by sub- stantial evidence.” The judgment of the Court of Civil Ap- peals is due to be reversed. Ex parte Caldwell (West Fraser, Inc. v. Caldwell), 21 ALW 30-1 (1110513), 7/20/12, Lee

Cty., Stuart; Malone, Woodall, Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Main, and Wise concur; Murdock concurs in the result, 17 pages. [ATTY: Pet: Tracy Cary, Dothan; Resp: James Sanders, Vestavia]

A Win For the Good Guys!

 Appellate Courts "Grappling" with Conflicting High Court Decisions

By Heather Scofield, Reporter (WorkCompCentral.Com)

The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday reinstated a trial court decision in favor of a worker who claimed he injured his back while at work, but the long, circuitous route that was required to bring resolution to that case will likely stand in front of other claimants until the high court clarifies conflicting decisions that it made in the past, attorneys say.

Stephen Christie, a partner with the Miller, Christie & Kinney law firm in Vestavia Hills, Ala., and member of the Workers' Compensation Defense Institute, said the high court's reversal of the Court of Appeals in the case is a symptom of problems caused by conflicting rulings the high court has made in the past.

"This is a conflict we're seeing over and over again," Christie said. "It’s an issue that really does need some further clarification and it's going to have to come from the Supreme Court."

In Ex Parte Windell Caldwell Sr., No. 1110513, the claimant asked the Supreme Court to overturn an appellate decision that reversed a trial court decision to award benefits in a case where there was disagreement about whether Caldwell's injury occurred at work.

One of the Supreme Court justices presiding over the case, Judge Glenn Murdock, stated that the conflict stems from the high court's own decisions in 2003 and 2008.

Tracy Cary, who is a partner with the Morris, Cary, Andrews, Talmadge & Driggers law firm in Dothan, represented Caldwell. He said his client had to wait two years for his case to be decided.

"We're very relieved (about the Supreme Court ruling)," Cary said. "But it’s kind of frustrating for an injured worker who’s left in limbo while things run their course.”

Central to the Caldwell case and others like it are the state Supreme Court's decisions in Ex Parte Southern Energy Homes, 2003, and Ex Parte McInish, 2008.

In McInish, the Supreme Court explained that the responsibility for making credibility determinations and weighing evidence in a case fall to the trial court. The court said an appellate court cannot reverse a trial court decision based on a particular finding of fact if the finding is supported by substantial evidence presented in the case in such a way that "fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved."

The Southern Energy Homes case, however, conflicts somewhat with principles embodied in state law and the McInish case, the July 20 opinion said. That case used a "totality-of-the-evidence approach" in its findings, the opinion said.

"The reason we are here, and the real reason the Court of Civil Appeals was so divided in its approach to this case, is in fact the holding of this court in Southern Energy Homes," Murdock wrote in the Caldwell opinion.

In the Caldwell case, Windell Caldwell applied for workers' compensation benefits from his longtime employer, West Fraser Inc., after he said he hurt his back while working on a mulching machine.

But in the trial court hearing on the matter, testimony conflicted as to whether Caldwell properly reported the injury to his supervisors and to the medical providers who treated him during the first few days following the accident.

Caldwell testified he did inform his supervisors and the medical providers of the accident immediately. But supervisors at the company said Caldwell reported only that he had back pain and did not say the pain was connected to an injury or accident at work. And medical records for Caldwell's first few efforts to get his injury treated also indicated he did not report that he had been injured at work.

The medical records began to reflect a report of a workplace injury only after Caldwell secured an attorney in the case four days after he hurt his back, according to court documents.

The trial court awarded Caldwell benefits in the case, citing his long and stable history with the company and the plausibility that the first few medical reports contained erroneous exclusion of a workplace injury being reported. The medical providers were not called as witnesses in the case, court documents said, and the trial court was left without benefit of hearing their version of events.

But the Court of Appeals later proffered up a split decision on the case that reversed and remanded the trial court's decision, arguing that Caldwell's claims were not supported by "substantial evidence," as state law requires, because he lacked documentation to prove he reported his injury as work-related to the company and medical providers in the case immediately after the alleged accident.

The majority in that decision, West Fraser Inc. v. Caldwell, concluded the trial court had given Caldwell the "benefit of the doubt" based on his work history with the company.

Judge Tommy Bryan, one of two dissenting judges in the appeals court case, said he would have awarded benefits because medical personnel may have failed to properly transcribe Caldwell's injury report. The lower court should have deference in deciding Caldwell's credibility on that matter, Bryan said.

The state's Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Bryan in its July 20 ruling.

Despite "some inconsistencies in the evidence," the court found that Caldwell's injury was compensable and supported by substantial evidence provided during the trial court proceedings after the accident. The situation and Caldwell's claims were not "so implausible in substance that a fair-minded person exercising impartial judgment could not reasonably infer from it causation," the court wrote in the opinion. Given that the trial court's decision did stem from substantial evidence presented in the case, the decision should stand, and the appellate court erred in overturning it, the Supreme Court opinion said.

The appellate court decision in Caldwell's case conflicted with the McInish case, the justices said. But the conflict was understandable, "unavoidable" even, given the Supreme Court decision in Southern Energy Homes, the July 20 opinion said.

Murdock borrowed terminology in his written opinion on the Caldwell case from one of the three dissenting opinions published in the Southern Energy Homes case to reflect his opinion.

The Southern Energy Homes case overruled "so much bedrock workers' compensation precedent," Murdock wrote.

"Unless and until this departure from the 'bedrock' principles reviewed at the outset of this writing is revisited and removed from our jurisprudence, it is inevitable that we will continue to see cases in which the appellate courts are asked to decide how much is enough -- how much evidence in favor of the employer is enough to outweigh the evidence in favor of the employee," Murdock wrote. "The struggle to answer this question has always been, and should again be, consigned solely to the trial courts."

Christie agreed and called the situation a "Catch 22" for the appellate courts. 

 "It’s a very difficult balance for them to strike," Christie  

said. "How do you answer that question (of substantial evidence) without reweighing the evidence?"

As more cases like the Caldwell case move their way to the Supreme Court, Christie speculated there might finally be a resolution.

"Someone will ask the Supreme Court to consider addressing the issue," Christie said.

Cary said he would welcome a fix. Everybody in workers' compensation benefits from more clarity in law, he said.

"If they’re able to make (this issue) clearer, I’m sure everyone would welcome that," Cary said.