My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1982/07/26
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
Agenda Packets - 1982/07/26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2025 1:24:05 PM
Creation date
3/12/2025 1:24:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/26/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Donald Pauley <br />July 26, 1982 <br />Page Two <br />direct supervisor. The City should then follow through <br />with the first injury report and notice to the insurance <br />carrier. <br />3. The City should not involve itself with the <br />investigation of claims but allow the insurance carrier to <br />do so. The insurance company is set up to make such <br />investigations and has primary responsibility to do so. <br />Further, it employs persons familiar with state law <br />regarding workers' compensation benefits who are able to <br />determine liability. <br />4. The City should not pay benefits under the injury on <br />duty clause of your contract until the insurance carrier <br />has determined its liability for workers' compensation <br />benefits. Then the City should act in accordance with the <br />insurance carrier's determination. <br />5. If benefits are paid by the City and insurance carrier <br />and then denied by the insurance carrier, the City should <br />recoup those benefits from future compensation. The <br />employee has a right to contest denial and if successful <br />the benefits should be reinstated by the City as well. <br />6. The injury on duty portion of your Labor/Relations <br />contract should include a provision that payment of such <br />benefits are contingent upon the employee's eligibility for <br />worker's compensation benefits. <br />In the case of Mr. Weston, I concur with Mr. Smythe that benefits <br />already paid be recovered until such time as Mr. Weston is <br />successful in proving that his injury was, in fact, wort; related. <br />If successful the benefits should be reinstated. <br />I hope this answers your questions in this regard. <br />Very truly yours, <br />RUSHTON & KARNEY <br />Mark A. Karney <br />MAR/rp <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.