Abstract
It is intuitively reasonable and eminently logical to give injured workers the opportunity to receive rehabilitation services designed to speed their return to work. Rehabilitation would seem to be an inseparable part of workers’ compensation, and yet recent events demonstrate anew how incompatible the two programs may be. The states of Washington and Colorado have amended their laws to cut back on their commitment to mandatory rehabilitation, and the rehabilitation provisions of the workers’ compensation laws in California, Minnesota, and Florida are under attack. Our purpose is to explore the uses of rehabilitation in workers’ compensation, and to examine whether the programs are inseparable, as has been the traditional claim, or incompatible, as recent experience would suggest.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
An explanation of the different systems in use in the state programs is found in Berkowitz, Monroe, and John F. Burton, Jr. Permanent Disability in Workers’ Compensation. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute, 1987.
Donoghue, Francis D. “Restoring the Injured Employee to Work.” In IAIABC Proceedings, 1916 United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 210, 1917, p. 212.
The rise and fall of the close collaborative efforts in New Jersey are detailed in Berkowitz, Monroe. Workmen’s Compensation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1960, chapter 8.
Berkowitz, Edward and Kim McQuaid. Creating the Welfare State. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1980, p. 64.
Worrall, John D., and Richard J. Butler. “Some Lessons in Workers’ Compensation.” In Monroe Berkowitz and M. Anne Hill (eds.), Disability and the Labor Market: Economic Problems, Policies and Programs. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1986.
Compare the model formulated on the basis of individual behavior in a non-workers’compensation situation. Mann, Duncan. “Models Based on Individual Behavior.” In Monroe Berkowitz (ed.), Measuring the Efficiency of Public Programs. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988.
The California system is examined and evaluated in Berkowitz, Monroe, and John F. Burton, Jr. Permanent Disability Benefits in Workers’ Compensation. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute, 1987, chapter 7.
A Report to the Industry—Vocational Rehabilitation.“ California Workers’ Compensation Institute, San Francisco, November, 1983.
Controlling Workers’ Compensation Costs: A Guide for Employers. Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, May, 1984, p. 23.
Chicago: American Medical Association, 1971.
Labor and Industry Compact. St. Paul, MN: Department of Labor and Industry, August, 1987, issue 16, p. 15.
Keefe, Steve, Jay Benanav, Joan Volz, and Wayne Simoneau. “1983 Amendments to the Minnesota Workers Compensation Act.” Draft, mimeo, 1985.
Effects of the 1983 Workers’ Compensation Reforms: Business Size Open Claim Study, Permanent Partial Disability Open Claim Study.“ Prepared by the Research and Education Division, Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. Mimeo, March, 1985.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1990 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Berkowitz, M. (1990). Rehabilitation and Workers’ Compensation: Incompatible or Inseparable?. In: Borba, P.S., Appel, D. (eds) Benefits, Costs, and Cycles in Workers’ Compensation. Huebner International Series on Risk, Insurance, and Economic Security, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2179-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2179-5_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7476-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2179-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive