Workers’ Comp Scam Targets Injured Workers
- The New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Administration issued a warning about scammers posing as agency employees, judges, attorneys or court officials who contact injured workers and pressure them to pay money to receive benefits or resolve a claim.
- Acting Director Alexis Armijo urged workers to stop and verify before sending money or personal information if contacted with payment demands, noting these scams particularly target people already dealing with an injury and uncertainty about their claim. Victims are contacted by
- The agency stressed it will never request payment via gift card, wire transfer, cryptocurrency, or similar methods, and legitimate communications won’t pressure workers to act immediately or threaten them for not paying.
- Workers who receive suspicious phone calls, emails, text messages or video calls are encouraged to contact the Workers’ Compensation Administration Ombudsman Program at 1-866-967-5667 or ombudsman.outreach@wca.nm.gov before responding, and should save evidence and report incidents to local law enforcement and the New Mexico Department of Justice.
- The New York Supreme Court granted a partial summary judgement on a Labor Law claim by a stone mechanic who was struck by a 350-pound marble slab while renovating a lobby at a property in New York City.
- Defendant 250 Broadway Associates Corp. argued the worker was distracted by his cell phone and walked into the slab while co-workers held it at ground level, but the court found this raised, at most, a comparative negligence issue, which is not a defense under Labor Law §240(1), and rejected the argument that no elevation-related risk existed given the slab’s weight and instability.
- The court denied dismissal of the worker’s Labor Law §241(6) claim, finding the defendants failed to show the slab was adequately secured or that the work area wasn’t exposed to falling objects).
- The court also denied the employer’s attempt to dismiss the worker’s Labor Law §200 and common-law negligence claims, holding that conflicting testimony over whether the slab was unsecured and toppled, versus whether Morina simply walked into it, presented triable issues of fact regarding the defendants’ notice of the hazardous condition in the lobby.