Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation

Casale v. City of Cranston is a recent Rhode Island case dealing with issues surrounding insurance coverage and injured on duty benefits.If you have been involved in a car accident in Bangor, it is important to know what insurance proceeds and benefits you are entitled to. Having an experienced Bangor injury attorney can give you the award you deserve to get the medical help you need.

James Casale (Casale or plaintiff) was employed by the City of Cranston (City) as a firefighter. After receiving notification of an emergency, plaintiff was driving a firefighter emergency vehicle to the location of the call. In transit, the emergency vehicle was struck by a vehicle driven by an uninsured driver. This uninsured driver was driving the vehicle negligently, and caused the accident with the emergency vehicle being driven by plaintiff.
As a result of this accident, plaintiff suffered serious injuries which caused him to be unable to perform crucial job related activities for several months. Because plaintiff had been injured while on duty, the city gave him injured-on-duty (IOD) benefits. While receiving these IOD benefits, plaintiff began a claim for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits with his insurance company, Amica Mutual Insurance Company (Amica). This dispute between the plaintiff and the City is a result this plaintiff’s claim with Amica.

Uninsured motorist coverage is a type of insurance benefits offered when you buy your automobile insurance. This type of coverage provides protection if you are involved in an accident with an uninsured driver. Because you cannot collect benefits from an uninsured driver, your insurance company will compensate you. This type of coverage is not standard in every state; however, it is critical to speak with your insurance representative to discuss the option of purchasing this coverage.

In this case, the plaintiff had a UM policy for $100,000. Because the City had already paid the plaintiff a significant amount in IOD benefits, Amica subtracted that amount from the policy limit of $100,000 and gave plaintiff the difference. Upon finding out about this claim, the city argued that the plaintiff was required to pay it back the amount they paid in IOD benefits. Plaintiff countered this argument by claiming that the city was not entitled to this reimbursement and asked the court to make a judicial determination of this.

The City acknowledged that the plaintiff was injured while he was performing his job duties and that he rightfully obtained IOD benefits from the city. However, the city countered the plaintiff’s argument stating that because the plaintiff had received UM benefits from Amica, the city should be reimbursed consistent with a state statute regarding liability to third persons. States have adopted statutes to protect liable parties from situations where the injured victim collects double the damages.

The city reasoned that Amica should be seen as “the person liable to pay damages” under the statute governing liability of third persons for damages. They argued that just as the insurance company steps in the shoes of the uninsured driver and pays benefits to their insured, the insurance company should be treated as the uninsured driver. And the statute the city pointed to stated that where the uninsured driver makes payments to the injured victim, the insurance company is reimbursed for any over-payments.

The lower court found in favor of the plaintiff and refused to award the city with the reimbursement they asked for. This court heard the appeal from the lower court’s decision and found in favor of the plaintiff finding that the City of Cranston was not entitled to reimbursements from the proceeds of plaintiff’s UM benefits.

Continue reading

Firefighters are one of the most crucial components of our society today. But when safety personnel are injured on the job, statute says they cannot collect benefits under workers’ compensation. They must receive benefits through the states “injured on duty statute.”If you have questions surrounding the benefits you are entitled to in your Bangor workers’ compensation case, our experienced Bangor injury attorneys can help.
McCain v. Town of North Providence is a case that tackles questions surrounding the Rhode Island’s “injured on duty statute.”sThe mayor’s chief of staff in 2001 wrote a memorandum to the town’s fire chief indicating that the town had hired McCain (plaintiff) as a 3rd Class Firefighter. The fire chief then issued an order which formalized this appointment of McCain. Subsequently, McCain received an identification card where he was considered a technician and a member of the town fire department. As a technician or lineman, plaintiff was not considered to be part of the operations division, as he was not obligated to attend fire department training. Plaintiff was responsible for maintaining communication equipment, aiding inspectors from the Fire Prevention Division, and assisting the fire chief in any departmental issue.

Plaintiff was a member of the AFL-CIO (the union) which was exclusively responsible for bargaining for all fire department employees. The union had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the fire department for which all employees of the fire department were subject to.

Five years after he was initially hired, plaintiff was putting a ladder back on a bucket truck when he lost balance and struck his head on a bucket apparatus. Because putting the ladder away was part of plaintiff’s job duties, he was considered to be injured in the line of duty. This classification resulted in the plaintiff receiving injured-on-duty (IOD) benefit payments as of the date of injury in addition to his salary payments. After three years of making these IOD and salary payments the town stopped payments. The town never gave the plaintiff notice and did not give the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard on the issue. Town argued that because plaintiff was not a “sworn firefighter” they had been mistakenly sending these IOD payments to plaintiff. Basically, there was a difference between the IOD benefits and the workers’ compensation related injury benefits.

Plaintiff asked the court to enter a declaratory judgment stating that he was a firefighter under the statutory definition of said title. Additionally, plaintiff wanted the IOD payments to resume.

This court looked to interpretation of the statute to determine whether the plaintiff was considered a firefighter and whether he should be entitled to the IOD benefits. When interpreting statute the court looks to the intent of the legislature in codifying the statute. In this case, the IOD statute was to provide a greater level of benefits to public employees who are injured during work-related activities where their jobs are often dangerous. IOD statutes are seen as a replacement to workers’ compensation in that it provides greater protection to police officers and firefighters. It is noted further that the Workers’ Compensation Act excludes police officers and firefighters from collecting benefits under that act as the legislature encourages states to enact IOD statutes.

The applicable statute says that anyone employed as a member of the fire department is considered a firefighter by the statute. Because the language in the statute is so clear, the court explains that they cannot hold counter to the statute’s clear intent.

Because the statute defines firefighter in such a broad sense, the plaintiff was considered a firefighter who was injured on duty; therefore, IOD benefits should be paid.

Continue reading