Following an admitted injury it is very common for the employer to send the injured employee to “their” doctor. Typically, this is at a facility which deals frequently with injured workers. For many injured workers, although the doctor may be treating them, it is still not their doctor. In fact, they had no choice or even say as to who is treating them. As result, under Minnesota workers’ compensation law an injured worker may change doctors within the first 60 days of medical treatment without the need for court approval. However, after the first 60 days it must be approved by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry.
As a general rule, the court has given great latitude in choosing and changing physicians. Reasons that have been allowed have included:
- Loss of confidence in a doctor’s ability to effectively treat the injured worker;
- Lack of improvement in the employee’s condition; and
- A breakdown in communication with the physician.
On January 28th the Workers’ Compensation Advisory Committee (WCAC) met to discuss recommendations for changes to the workers’ compensation statute. This was the first time a proposed draft to the statute was made public. In its present form, it appears to be a “rough” draft. But if passed in roughly the same form, it would have a big impact on injured workers’ benefits. Some of the proposed legislation is as follows:
One of the many things that sets me apart from other attorneys is my accessibility. Not only am I available on my cell phone, email and at the office, I also can be found on a variety of social media outlets. Most evenings you can find me on facebook or twitter talking about work comp and other issues.
If you are interested you can find me on the following sites.
For many foreign born workers, obtaining medical treatment following a work injury can be extremely difficult. This can be due to misconceptions about the culture and language barriers.
Let me give you an example. The other day I was sitting in on a statement of my client to an insurance adjuster and their interpreter. Fortunately, for me and my client I had someone from my office sit in on the conversation. I found that often times the insurance companies interpreter, who was being paid by the insurance company, failed to accurately interpret my client’s statements. It became frustrating not only for my client but also for the adjuster.
