{"id":72,"date":"2018-03-23T17:54:30","date_gmt":"2018-03-23T17:54:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/?p=72"},"modified":"2024-07-10T13:22:42","modified_gmt":"2024-07-10T13:22:42","slug":"worker-safety-rule-violations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/worker-safety-rule-violations\/","title":{"rendered":"Workers&#8217; Compensation &#8211; Safety Rule Violations"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The purpose of the Workers&#8217; Compensation Act is straightforward. &nbsp;It was created to establish &#8220;quick and efficient delivery of disability and medical benefits to injured workers&#8230;&#8221; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.colorado.gov\/pacific\/sites\/default\/files\/WC_ACT_2017_linked.pdf\">C.R.S. 8-40-102(1) (2017)<\/a>. &nbsp;This is an ambitious goal. &nbsp;Yet, despite record-breaking profits, the insurance industry seems to be fighting more and more. &nbsp;One of the dirtiest tricks that I see pulled is when the employer claims that the injured worker had a safety rule violation.<\/p>\n<p>Sections C.R.S. 8-42-112(1) (a) &amp; (b) authorize a 50% reduction in compensation for employee&#8217;s who have willfully violated an employer&#8217;s safety rule. &nbsp;It is important to note, that an employer need not formally adopt the safety rule, nor do they need to have it in writing.&nbsp;<em>Lori&#8217;s Family Dining v.<\/em> Indus. Claims Appeals Office, 907 P.2d 715, 719 (Colo. App. 1995).<\/p>\n<p>Theoretically, an employee who violates a safety rule, is seriously injured, can be paid 50% less for the rest of their lives (or their spouse&#8217;s lives if deceased), because the employee failed to follow a safety rule. &nbsp;However, this scenario should be an outlier, as majority of injuries do not happen because the employee shrugged off a safety rule. &nbsp;The problem is that the employer is likely to lose a substantial amount of money when faced with a grievous injury, so they are incentivized to fight the employee. &nbsp;This includes claiming a safety rule violation.<\/p>\n<p>We have had clients who have been in this exact situation. &nbsp;It is not a good position to be in. &nbsp;The employer is allowed to deduct 50% the moment they claim the employee violated the safety rule. &nbsp;Which means, the employee or their loved ones have to accept a reduced amount until a judge rules in their favor. &nbsp;If you find yourself in this position, then it is crucial that you hire a lawyer immediately.<\/p>\n<h2>Fighting Back<\/h2>\n<p>The good news is that the law is in the employee&#8217;s favor. &nbsp;There are five elements that the employer must prove for a 8-42-112(1)(b) violation, or the employee&#8217;s willful violation of a safety rule. &nbsp;The five elements required are:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>A safety rule must be adopted by the employer<\/li>\n<li>The safety rule must be reasonable<\/li>\n<li>The safety rule must be known by the employee\n<ol>\n<li>Evidence must show that the safety rule was &#8220;brought home&#8221; and diligently enforced.&nbsp;<em>Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v Kirkpatrick<\/em>, 111 Colo. 470, 143 P.2d 267 (Colo. 1943)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<li>The safety rule needs to be clear. &nbsp;This means unambiguous, and specific.<\/li>\n<li>There must be evidence of a willful violation.\n<ol>\n<li>Willful in this context means, with &#8220;deliberate intent.&#8221;<em>&nbsp;City of Las Animas v. Maupin<\/em>, 804 P.2d 285 (Colo. App 1990).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>This is a high burden for the employer to shoulder, and remains in place due to the severe impact a 50% reduction has on employees. &nbsp;However, an employee cannot sit idly by when the employer makes this kind of challenge. &nbsp;Deadlines are numerous and significant in the Workers&#8217; Compensation process. &nbsp;The failure to meet any one could mean the difference between winning and losing. &nbsp;Please contact Maes Law, P.C. right away if you or your loved one has encountered this issue. &nbsp;No one should have to have to deal with fighting the insurance companies in the midst of tragedy, which is why we are here to fight on your behalf.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_74\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-74\" style=\"width: 300px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-74\" src=\"https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/graphicstock-construction-worker-has-an-accident-while-working-on-new-house_rRIELC5Z-1-1-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/graphicstock-construction-worker-has-an-accident-while-working-on-new-house_rRIELC5Z-1-1-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/graphicstock-construction-worker-has-an-accident-while-working-on-new-house_rRIELC5Z-1-1-768x513.jpg 768w, https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/graphicstock-construction-worker-has-an-accident-while-working-on-new-house_rRIELC5Z-1-1-1024x684.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/graphicstock-construction-worker-has-an-accident-while-working-on-new-house_rRIELC5Z-1-1-200x133.jpg 200w, https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/graphicstock-construction-worker-has-an-accident-while-working-on-new-house_rRIELC5Z-1-1-660x441.jpg 660w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-74\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Construction worker has an accident while working on the job<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n<p>SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER:<\/p>\n\n\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The purpose of the Workers&#8217; Compensation Act is straightforward. &nbsp;It was created to establish &#8220;quick and efficient delivery of disability&hellip; <a class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/worker-safety-rule-violations\/\">Read more <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Workers&#8217; Compensation &#8211; Safety Rule Violations<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-72","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=72"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7713,"href":"https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72\/revisions\/7713"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.maeslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}