There is a lot going on in the Legislature this year in Washington state, some of it of interest to those involved in our workers comp system. The Senate passed 3 proposals dealing with workers compensation that are not beneficial to injured workers. Those proposals now go to the House, where, thankfully, there are more voices supporting the injured workers in our state.
Two of the proposals deal with our relatively new structured settlements in the workers compensation arena. For the last year injured workers over the age of 55 with allowed claims have been permitted to seek a resolution of their claims through a structured settlement. There is strict review process for these agreements by the Board of Industrial Appeals to insure these agreements are in the best interest of the worker. Well, ‘insure’ is a strong word. The review tries to establish the worker knows what they are giving up, and asks that worker to articulate why they believe taking less than their claim is potentially worth is in their best interest. Over the last year slightly more than 2 dozen of these structured settlements were approved.
Needless to say, this is not the flood of settlements the business community had hoped for, nor has it resulted in the significant savings projected. Wait, think about that. Structured settlements are supposed to save money for business. How is that? Of course, if you pay an injured worker less than they would otherwise be entitled to receive, you save money. Do that enough times, you save a lot of money. So, the business community convinced our state Senate to relax the age restriction and review process in the hopes there will be more workers rushing to settle their claims. In support, they point to the number of States where there are few, if any, controls on settlements of workers compensation claims. Businesses in our state, they say, are at a competitive disadvantage because they cannot short change their injured employees. It is disturbing logic.
Fortunately, there are a couple of barriers to the Senate proposals. First, our State House of Representatives has long been a strong champion for workers in this state. Contact your Representative now, it just takes a short e-mail, to let them know you oppose any attempt to dilute the strong protections for injured workers in our current structured settlement process. You can find your Legislators here:
The other barrier? The workers in this state, themselves. There hasn’t been a flood of workers clamoring to enter into structured settlements because, for the most part, they aren’t in your best interest. Yes, there are specific particular circumstances where it may be best for an injured worker to negotiate a structured settlement. Personally, I think they are, and should be, few and far between. Definitely, talk to a good workers comp attorney if you think you may be in that camp. But for most workers, a structured settlement is just a bad idea. Our workers compensation process is a safety net system, not an injury recovery system. It is not designed to reimburse you for what you’ve lost, like an auto accident claim. It is supposed to provided needed wage replacement, medical services and vocational assistance when you need them – not some projected lump sum value of what you might need, if you guess right. Most injured workers will not be better off giving up that safety net in exchange for a structured settlement, any more than an unemployed worker would be better off accepting 6 months of unemployment benefits in a lump sum instead of preserving entitlement to 12 months of benefits should they need them. Sure, Employment Security would save money, businesses would save money, they might even be more competitive as a result. But would anyone think that’s a good idea?