Social Security: Injured Workers Hidden Expense

There are two extensive analyses on the growing problem within workers’ compensation that sheds much needed light on the problem of cost shifting. I wrote about this at length in my book, but it's nice to get the leading policymakers’ and a judge's perspective on the issue. There's a rising call for federalization of the workers' compensation system as a result and, I would say, the reverse trend of opting-out. Currently, both Texas and Oklahoma have opt-out systems, where employers can set up their own compensation program for injured workers. Florida would like to join them, but there's mounting backlash, from the bench as well as the bar as these systems have inconsistency in treatments, benefits and accepted illnesses/injuries, repetitive strain injuries being among them.

The first article discusses a recent paper by John Burton and Steve Guo, the men who ran a commission studying workers’ compensation in 1972 and who are currently updating their report. The second article refuting some of Burton/Guo's most recent conclusions is from Judge David Langham who's had to deal with the repercussions of the 1972 Commission Report.

Both argue whether the federal government should interfere with workers' compensation, at least in the context of how it interacts with Social Security. But I say it already does. I'm currently being charged by Social Security for the healthcare I received under my workers’ compensation claim. In order to even receive Medicare, I had to pay $45,000 into the system in case I needed "healthcare attributable to my injury" even though the only treatments Medicare covers is surgery and very limited chiropractic.

To add insult to injury, Social Security began reducing my payments by over $150,000 to cover the amount of my healthcare bills in my workers’ compensation case. An amount inflated by the insurance company when it insisted on sending me to 9 different doctors, hoping that one would find  I was less injured than my own doctor. Each one found instead that I was more injured. These reductions in my benefits came from the federal government, not the workers’ compensation system itself.

Replacement amounts for lost wages are supposed to be 66% by law, when in fact, in California recent Burton/Guo analysis finds it's more like 37%. My benefits were reduced by two-thirds, making my replacement for lost wages 13% of my original income. Is this the case for every worker who becomes permanently totally disabled by the failed workers’ compensation system? Judge Langham calls this “an arbitrary legislative determination that some level of income while disabled is ‘enough.’ I wonder how well anyone would live off 13% of their salary.

@JillGambaro is the author of The Truth About Carpal Tunnel Syndrome . She advocates for patient engagement and employee engagement to resolve carpal tunnel syndrome and keep everyone working healthy. Follow her on LinkedIn, Blogger, Facebook and Twitter. @DavidCayJ @dorydevlin