• Please excuse our dust
  • We are continuing the redesign of our forums
  • We'll get there eventually!
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Utica Mohawk language not what SSA wants!
#1
Read this court appeal where the defendant LOST using the Utica Mohawk language. I was "googling" and found the disturbing;

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions.../26762.htm


(1) Utica-Mohawk Mills v. Orr

James initially cited Utica-Mohawk Mills v. Orr, 227 S.C. 226, 87 S.E.2d 589 (1955), in addition to the general authority of the Commission under statutory law, for support of the Commission's use of proration language. Although Utica-Mohawk Mills is often cited in the Commission's orders along with statutory law when prorating lump sum awards, the circuit court concluded Utica-Mohawk Mills is not applicable here because that case involves "construing a permanent partial disability award of the Commission." The circuit court stated this case essentially stands for the proposition that, "in the absence of the consent of the parties" the Commission and the Courts are without authority to "increase the amount of the weekly installments above the sum [allowed by law] or [to] reduce the length of the statutory period."

Utica-Mohawk Mills interpreted a statute concerning partial disability and held that the weekly compensation (not to exceed 300 weeks) for a claimant who sustained a thirty percent permanent disability should be calculated by taking a percentage of the difference between the average weekly wages he was earning before the injury and the average weekly wages that the employee was able to earn after the injury. Id. at 230, 87 S.E.2d at 591.

As the parties concede on appeal, although the Commission, the Social Security Administration, and the courts have referred to the Utica-Mohawk Mills case in this context, it does not actually address the lifetime proration issue presently before us. Further, reliance on this case is misplaced because Utica-Mohawk Mills was issued in 1955, and the first offset provision in the Social Security Act was not added until 1956, which "conclusively shows that Utica-Mohawk's authority for a reduction in workers' compensation benefits before social security disability insurance benefits are reduced is unfounded." Grady L. Beard et al., The Law of Workers' Compensation Insurance in South Carolina, 568 (5th ed. 2008). "Nonetheless, due to its history of accepting the priority of workers' compensation reductions under South Carolina law, the Social Security Administration accepts this case as authority that workers' compensation benefits can be reduced to maximize a claimant's entitlement to Social Security disability insurance benefits." Id.

For the reasons noted above, I agree with the circuit court that the Utica-Mohawk Mills case has no application here. However, it is important to next consider the Commission’s authority under statutory law.
 
Reply
#2
Did you ever see my Thread on this before FreeBird? if not, here this will link you to it. it provides the way it's written, and a pre-outlined form and all.

http://www.workerscompensation.com/forum...p?tid=4757
Reply's are intended solely for informational purposes. They are based on personal opinions, experience, or research and are "not to be taken as fact or legal advice", otherwise, always consult an attorney or a doctor.
 
Reply
#3
[/b]I even remember when I had recieved a Back-pay Check from Social Security. It was even using a form of the writings from Utica Mohawk language. As it had shown it was being paid out over a course of years, and from such month, Date, Year, to the following Month, Date & year. The reason behind it, as they told me, I would need to have my Income Tax lady, at Tax time, re-do my Taxes and go back several years because of the way the dates are being paid. Because if the check didn't outline how over the years it was to be paid, I would of got slamed on income Taxes for the year that check came.

So even Social Security using a form of the language. I do think Utica Mohawk language is now these days just a term phrase used as to what is being needed to show a settlement is being issued, and paid out, over a set course of several years, in hopes of not to have to off-set any SSDI or SSI payments one gets monthly.
Reply's are intended solely for informational purposes. They are based on personal opinions, experience, or research and are "not to be taken as fact or legal advice", otherwise, always consult an attorney or a doctor.
 
Reply
#4
Bad Boy Bad Boy Wrote:[/b]I even remember when I had recieved a Back-pay Check from Social Security. It was even using a form of the writings from Utica Mohawk language. As it had shown it was being paid out over a course of years, and from such month, Date, Year, to the following Month, Date & year. The reason behind it, as they told me, I would need to have my Income Tax lady, at Tax time, re-do my Taxes and go back several years because of the way the dates are being paid. Because if the check didn't outline how over the years it was to be paid, I would of got slamed on income Taxes for the year that check came.

So even Social Security using a form of the language. I do think Utica Mohawk language is now these days just a term phrase used as to what is being needed to show a settlement is being issued, and paid out, over a set course of several years, in hopes of not to have to off-set any SSDI or SSI payments one gets monthly.

I agree 100%. The problem above seemingly was the actual use of the term Utica Mohawk in the settlement.
Utica Mohawk in reality does not actually address the lifetime proration issue.
We have to be careful with the language that is used in settling the Indemnity and the SSA.

http://www.workerscompensation.com/forum...p?tid=4757
 
Reply
#5
RE: Utica-Mohawk Agreement Here's the Information
Timoty Belt Attorney here at this Board, writes his client this way;

RE: Lump Sum affecting SSDI

Here is the language I use.

The parties agree the payment of $________________.00 represents payment of all future medical expenses and wage loss/indemnity claims payable to the Claimant for the rest of his or her natural life. Attorney's fees in the amount of $_________.00 are being deducted. No portion of this settlement is being specifically attributed to future medical expense. Accordingly, the Claimant will therefore net the sum of $__________.00 as payment for wage loss/indemnity benefits for the rest of his or her natural life. The Claimant is ________ (___) years old (born ________, 19___), and his remaining life expectancy is _____ years or ____ months (pursuant to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) Table 1 (All American Table), United States Life Tables, 2004. NVSR Volume 56, Number 9. 40 pp. (PHS) 2008-1120. (online version)). Therefore, even though the above amount is being paid in a lump sum, for the purpose of determining any offset by the Social Security Administration on account of the Claimant's receipt of this worker's compensation settlement, the Claimant's net payment of future wage loss/indemnity benefits in the lump sum of $______.00 over ___ months amounts to an equivalent monthly payment of $______ per month ($_____.00 divided by ___ months = $_____ per month). The commencement date represents the first day following the last payment of workers' compensation wage loss/indemnity benefits. The offset rate stated herein is set forth specifically to comply with the Social Security Administration's POMS Section DI - 52001.555 (4). See Sanfilippo v. Barnhart, 325 F.3d 391 (3d Circuit 2003).
 
Reply
#6
should be a sticky post
........I love cats, I just cant eat a whole one by myself......







 
Reply
  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Hey, Bad Boy and others...Utica-Mohawk Agreement! Wink 6 3,302 10-11-2007, 10:54 PM
Last Post: tweety00
  Forum Language Explanation, Please help me! Joejobutter 4 1,889 06-13-2007, 10:08 PM
Last Post: tweety00

Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)