Tennessee Claim 'Lost in Translation'

A Tennessee trial court was wrong when it ordered an employer to provide an injured worker whose first language is Arabic with a translator during the discovery process in the welder’s litigated workers’ compensation claim, the state’s Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board ruled Tuesday.
A Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims judge previously ordered Indmar Products Co. to hire an Arabic translator to ensure that its injured employee fully understood questions and requests for document production during litigation.
On appeal, the company argued it shouldn’t have to pay for a translator because the welder, Asad Almalhi, didn’t request translation services when discovery requests were initially sent.
In reversing the workers’ comp court judge’s ruling, the appeals board said Almalhi initially indicated that he didn’t require the services of a translator, he attended a deposition in which he answered all questions in English without assistance, and he provided responses to discovery requests without seeking the help of a translator.
READ MORE

Forbes Technology Council member Robert Clark wrote Tuesday that AI’s integration into workers’ compensation insurance could move it from a reactive to a proactive service, boosting workplace safety and employee well-being.
Clark, CEO of Cloverleaf Analytics, wrote that the evolution could lead to fewer claims and reduced recurrence of expensive unexpected claims, transforming workers’ compensation insurance into a more proactive service.
“While many fear AI will replace jobs, I believe we’re entering an era where AI will provide greater protection to workers through more intelligent workers’ comp insurance interactions,” Clark wrote.
READ MORE

The New Jersey Supreme Court began its new term Monday hearing a workers’ compensation matter asking whether there was an obligation for an insurer to defend an employer accused of negligence claims brought by an employee who had received WC benefits.
In this case, an employee had received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, which held both workers’ compensation and employer liability insurance through Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co.
The worker subsequently filed a complaint alleging that his injuries were caused by the employer’s negligence, gross negligence, recklessness and intentional misconduct, and sought compensatory damages under the New Jersey Supreme Court’s 2002 ruling in Laidlow v. Hariton Machinery.
Under Laidlow, an employee seeking to prove an intentional wrong must prove either that the employer had a subjective desire to injure or that, based on all the facts and circumstances of the case, the employer knew an injury was substantially certain to result, according to the Appellate Division decision in the case.
The court called substantial certainty “an extraordinarily high bar.”
READ MORE