Colorado—Caps on Benefits After Apportionment
On June 17, 2021, the Colorado Court of Appeals, Division I, in Browne v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, ruled that the statutory cap on benefits under C.R.S. 8-42-107.5 is to be applied to the apportioned impairment rating for claims for injuries to the same body part under C.R.S. 8-42-104(5).
In this case, a claimant who had suffered prior and subsequent work injuries to the same body part argued that the benefit cap should have been based on his total impairment rating minus the amount awarded to him in benefits for the prior injury. The court disagreed and found that C.R.S. 8-42-104(5) plainly and unambiguously states that a claimant’s prior impairment must be deducted when apportioning a prior injury, and that the statutory cap provided for in C.R.S. 8-42-107.5 applies to the permanent impairment rating attributable to the recent injury alone, as determined by the apportionment process.
The court reasoned that the legislature’s intent in imposing a statutory cap and mandating apportionment of multiple claims arising out of injuries to the same body part is best achieved by applying the cap to the apportioned impairment rating. Therefore, the court concluded that the claimant’s 26% whole person impairment rating—obtained after reaching maximum medical improvement for the second injury—had to be reduced by the 6% impairment attributable to the first injury to which the benefit cap amount provided for in C.R.S. 8-42-107.5 would apply.
The court also concluded that the claimant failed to establish that basing the statutory benefits cap in apportioned impairment ratings violates the right to equal protection under the law. The court noted that the claimant could not establish that he was treated differently than other similarly situated claimants and there was a rational basis for any unequal treatment.
This decision could be appealed. NCCI will monitor future developments.
Arkansas—Marijuana Reimbursement in Workers Compensation
On June 17, 2021, the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) ruled, in Jones v. Amercable Corp., that a workers compensation insurer could not be compelled to pay for the costs of a claimant’s medical marijuana use as a workers compensation treatment because marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The Commission also found that, based on the specific facts of the case, medical marijuana was not reasonably and necessary medical treatment in relation to the claimant’s compensable injuries.
In its decision, the Commission reasoned that while some states have legalized marijuana’s medical and recreational use, it remains illegal at the federal level and violators of the CSA risk arrest and prosecution. The Commission added that ordering an employer or other third-party payor to pay or reimburse a claimant for medical marijuana is tantamount to the state of Arkansas legally mandating the employer or third-party payor to aid and abet in the commission of a federal crime.
The Commission also observed that while there is insufficient medical evidence on the effectiveness of marijuana in treating chronic pain, there are other approved drugs that are proven to be safe and effective in relieving chronic pain. The Commission cited the claimant’s own testimony that prescription pain medications do a better job at stopping his pain as compared to marijuana.
This decision could be appealed. NCCI will monitor future developments.
For more information on other cases monitored by NCCI’s Legal Division, visit previous Court Case Updates and
Court Case Insights under the
Legal section of
INSIGHTS on
ncci.com.
This article is provided solely as a reference tool to be used for informational purposes only. The information in this article shall not be construed or interpreted as providing legal or any other advice. Use of this article for any purpose other than as set forth herein is strictly prohibited.
