A tale of two counties in the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court

Posted on by

An ambundance of call center jobs, like the one I did for Ameritrade in Bellevue in the Y2k era, is one reason why Sarpy County has relatively few workers’ compensation claims.

Sarpy County is Nebraska’s third largest county and is nearly three times larger than Nebraska’s fourth largest county, Hall County. But when it comes to cases litigated in the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court, Hall County outpaced Sarpy County 66 to 49 in fiscal year 2017 according to the latest report from the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation court.

2017 was not an aberration. Hall County consistently has more workers compensation cases litigated than Sarpy County. A comparison of data from the Nebraska Department of Labor about the two counties provides some indication of why more workers’ compensation cases are litigated in Hall County than Sarpy County.

In Sarpy County, customer service/call centers are one of the jobs with the most openings. In Hall County, material handler and welder are among the jobs with the most openings. A welder or material handler is more likely to get hurt on the job than a customer service representative or call center worker.

In Sarpy County, white collar defense contractors, McCallie Associates and Booz-Allen Hamilton are among the top five employers with job openings. In Hall County, Essential Personnel is the employer  with the most job openings. Essential Personnel is hiring for mostly for blue collar jobs that are more likely to cause injury.

Sarpy County has a more white-collar workforce than Hall County which could explain why fewer injury cases are litigated.  But there are also some other reasons why relatively few work injury cases are litigated in Sarpy County in comparison with other counties. Sarpy County is home to Offutt Air Force Base and many work injuries on the base would be handled under federal workers’ compensation statutes. Werner Enterprises is also headquartered in Sarpy County. However most of their work injuries occur with drivers injured outside of Nebraska. In a case where a Werner driver is injured outside of Nebraska, those cases are litigated in Lancaster County.

In both counties nursing and retail are among the five sectors with the most job openings. Public school districts are the second largest employers in both counties. The similarities between Sarpy County and Hall County speak to increasingly employment in the service sector throughout Nebraska.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett & Moore, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Nebraska, Workers Compensation and tagged , , , , , , , , .

9th Circuit pesticide decision points out environmental hazards of D.C. swamp

Posted on by

Scott Pruitt’s tenure at the EPA is worthy of derision, but the Obama EPA was far from stellar.

In a victory for farm workers, last Thursday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  to completely ban the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos within 60 days.

While most comment on the decision seemed to criticize former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who no doubt deserves the criticsm, the Ninth Circuit probably would not have ruled the way it did if the EPA under the Obama administration had not dithered in addressing the risks of chlorpyrifos.

What is chlorpyrifos and why is it dangerous?

Chlorpyrifos is a pesticide that is in the same chemical class as sarin gas. Chlorpyrifos can be toxic or even fatal for farmworkers exposed to it and studies show can contribute to genetic defects to children who are exposed to the chemical.  Unlike the popular chemical Round Up, that a jury recently found to have caused cancer for a California man, chlorpyrifos was banned for residential use by the EPA in 2002. However, the EPA still tolerates the chemical for agricultural use, wherein this court case began in 2007.

Background of the court case

In 2007, advocates for farmworkers and others filed a petition challenging the EPA’s tolerance for the use of chlorpyrifos in agriculture. In order to continue tolerating use of the chemical, the EPA would have to show no risk from the use of chemical. A 2008 EPA study showed the EPA couldn’t meet that burden. Another study in 2011 lead to the same conclusion.

Despite the findings of EPA scientists about the risks of chlorpyrifos in agricultural use the EPA took no action. Advocates for banning the chemical filed what amounted to a motion to compel against the EPA in 2014 which finally lead to a proposed rule in late 2015. Advocates filed another motion to implement the ban that the EPA fought in court.

Just when the EPA was ready to implement the rule, the Trump administration came in, under Scott Pruitt and denied the petition to ban chlorpyrifos. Farm worker advocates along with some state attorney generals filed an appeal in court The EPA, making no attempt to argue the merits of the claim, argued that the petitioners hadn’t “exhausted administrative remedies” or followed the proper procedure before litigating the case.

Federal District Judge Jed Rakoff, who was essentially filling in as an appellate judge in the Ninth Circuit, wisely rejected  the EPA’s argument.  He pointed out that allowing the EPA to argue the petitioners had not exhausted administrative agencies would just encourage the EPA to drag out rulings over 10 years and the course of three Presidential administrations.

A dissenting opinion cited to a Second Circuit Court of Appeals that held otherwise, which means the legal issue over how the EPA handles petitions to ban chemicals could be decided by the Supreme Court in the near future.

Political commentary

Reporting by Mike Elk of Payday Report raised concerns during the Obama administration about how the chemical industry was weakening and delaying EPA rule making on chemicals and workplace safety.  The opinion by Judge Rakoff describes how the Obama administration lollygagged in addressing the risks of chlorpyrifos despite two scientific findings by the agency about the danger of the chemical. There is a disturbing irony in the Obama administrations failure to protect farmworkers from chlorpyrifos. Obama’s slogan during his 2008 campaign “Yes We Can” was a translation of the phrase “Si Se Puede” used by farm worker union organizer Cesar Chavez.  Obama said early in his administration that “Elections have consequences.” One consequence of his administration was that a dangerous chemical known to be harmful to farmworkers and their families remained in use through the eight years of his administration.

As mentioned earlier, a state court jury in California found that the herbicide Round Up caused cancer for a California man and entered a $289 million dollar judgment against Round Up manufacturer, Monsanto. In contrast to the plodding, ineffective and lobbyist-driven administrative process that went on for for over a decade without resolution over chlorpyrifos, a citizen was able to get justice against a major corporation from a jury in state court. The contrast between the ongoing  chlorpyrifos debacle and the verdict in the Round Up case should re-enforce the importance of the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett & Moore, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in administrative law, EPA, hazardous chemicals, pesticides and tagged , , , , , , .

Workers will be hurt by reversal of EPA asbestos ban

Posted on by

Donald Trump-branded asbestos being exported from Russia.

The EPA is now allowing for asbestos to be used in manufacturing  again. In fact, asbestos sold by a Russian company is actually branded with the President’s face.  What does this mean for workers? Potentially this would be bad, real bad, for many workers in manufacturing and frankly anyone who may come in contact with asbestos. 

For decades it has been common knowledge that exposure to asbestos causes Mesothelioma (a fatal cancer of the mesothelial lining in the lungs). In fact, it is estimated that each year 2,000 to 3,000 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year in the United States, with 40,000 annual deaths attributed to exposure to asbestos.

Here is a vivid description of how asbestos effects the body posted by a user on Reddit:

Imagine swallowing a big handful of straight pins. Now instead shrink them down until they’re microscopic. Now multiply the number you had by tens of thousands (if not millions, billions, etc. Difficult to truly get a reasonable scale here). That’s what’s happening to your lungs when you inhale asbestos fibers.

This is what you’re dealing with. You inhale it, it goes through your airways causing microtears which lead to inflammation. That’s not a huge deal until it happens on a large enough scale (such as asbestos exposure). To make things worse, it will stick into the linings of your airways, lungs, etc. It doesn’t go away. Everywhere they stick in is going to be permanently inflamed. Chronic inflammation can damage your DNA and can lead to cancer. A lot more goes into it than that, but you can safely say chronic inflammation is bad news regardless of why it’s happening.

Another way of thinking of it: asbestos is like a splinter that will never go away. Except now you have millions of them and they’re all throughout your airways.

In other words, this is a substance that literally kills people, and has been known to kill people for decades. While exposure to asbestos may provide workers’ compensation benefits and tort recovery for the exposed worker and/or his family, it would be better for all to simply not be exposed to the substance at all.

The EPA’s rule on asbestosis is the just the latest move by the agency that increases the risk of workers’ being exposed to toxic substances on the job.  While former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was forced out over numerous charges of petty corruption and became a laughingstock and lightening rod for critics of the Trump administration, Pruitt’s anti-workplace safety agenda continues under much less controversial successor.

In a bit of positive news for workplace safety, last Thursday the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the EPA to ban the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos. It will be interesting to see if the ban is challenged and the outcome of a potential Supreme Court case.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett & Moore, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Asbestos. EPA, Mesothelioma and tagged , , .

Can civil rights agencies help employees beat arbitration clauses?

Posted on by

If confirmed, will Washington Nationals superfan Brett Kavanaugh just call balls and strikes when it comes to workplace justice issues?

The Lincoln Commission on Human Rights (LCHR) entered an award last month of $175,000 on behalf of a man who they found was discriminated against based on nationality and age.

While a six-figure judgment in favor of an employee in Lincoln is newsworthy in and of itself, the procedural back story of the case should be just as interesting to lawyers and observers of the legal system in light of recent Supreme Court decisions.

A federal judge overruled the employer’s motion to compel arbitration in the case. In a memorandum recommending the motion to compel arbitration be overruled a federal magistrate cited to the 2002 Supreme Court case, EEOC v. The Waffle House to hold that the Lincoln Commission on Human Rights was not a party to arbitration agreement and was free to pursue relief on behalf of the employee. The memorandum cited Iowa and Massachusetts cases applying Waffle House to state anti-discrimination agencies to find it applicable to the LCHR.

The ability of employees to use civil rights agencies as an end run around arbitration clauses, has taken new importance in the light of the Supreme Court’s recent Epic decision was which provided even more ability for employers to enforce arbitration agreements.

But there are some potential barriers for employees who wish to have an anti-discrimination agency pursue a discrimination claim on their behalf.

The most practical barrier is the lack of resources of civil rights agencies. In Nebraska, an employee has to wait several months before an investigator is assigned to their claim. This means that evidence gets spoiled and overworked investigators may not be as willing to pursue a case because of workload concerns. Without good evidence an agency is not going to pursue a claim on behalf of an employee in the public hearing process.

The inadequate funding of administrative agencies stems from a general hostility that many conservatives have towards the so-called “administrative state” or executive agencies that generally regulate the economy. (These same folks are deferential to executive agencies that comprise the national security state and law enforcement) This hostility is also evidenced in judicial skepticism of administrative agencies. This skepticism was on display from the Supreme Court in the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. In Masterpiece the court found that comments made by a state human rights commissioner were sufficient evidence of bias to overturn a decision finding a business owner who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding had committed illegal discrimination. I would expect more of that heightened scrutiny of decisions made by civil rights agencies in the future.

Finally, Waffle House may not remain controlling law. Waffle House was decided by a relatively narrow 6-3 decision with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the dissenting opinion. Legal journalist Ian Millhiser has deemed Thomas to be the most influential justice  because of his long record of dissenting and concurring opinions that are increasingly being adopted as law due to changes in the composition of the court.

Since Waffle House was decided in 2002, the Supreme Court has added Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito. Gorsuch is noted for his particular hostility to administrative agencies.  Supreme Court nominee and DC Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s views on administrative agencies allegedly aren’t as strident  as those of his fellow Georgetown Prep alum, Neil Gorsuch. But an employer looking to overturn the Waffle House decision may find a friendly audience with a five-justice majority comprising Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett & Moore, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Arbitration, civil rights, Supreme Court and tagged , , , , .

Kansas court holds adoption of AMA 6th violates due process

Posted on by

The Kansas Supreme Court undid one small part of Sam Brownback’s legacy

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled on Friday that adoption of the American Medical Association Guides to Permanent Impairment, Sixth Edition (AMA Sixth) to pay permanent injuries under their workers’ compensation act violated constitutional rights to due process because it gave injured workers an inadequate remedy for work injuries.

The decision in Johnson v. US Food Service came on the heels of a recent Oklahoma decision that upheld the constitutionality of the AMA Sixth in that state’s workers’ compensation law. Injured workers in Kansas were likely helped by the Kansas applying heightened scrutiny in assessing a due process violation rather than applying what amounts to rational basis scrutiny like the Oklahoma court did in upholding their use of the AMA Sixth.

The Kansas court also seemed to be persuaded by findings of fact and legislative history about the problems with the AMA Sixth in how it compensates work injuries. The court was particularly persuaded by findings that the AMA Sixth lead to lower impairment ratings because it measured impairment based on inability to do general life activities rather than activities related to working. The Kansas decision throwing out the use of the AMA 6th will likely be persuasive to trial courts in other states when deciding whether impairment under the AMA 6th sufficiently compensates injured workers. 

The decision was also premised on the fact that injured workers give up the right to a trial by jury to pursue a tort claim against the employers to receive workers’ compensation benefits. According to the Kansas court, compensating employees under the AMA 6th when combined with other recent changes to Kansas workers’ compensation law meant that employees were giving up too much in exchange for not being able to sue their employers and have a trial by jury.

Last month, I posted “Appellate courts aren’t going to save workers’ compensation.” Maybe I was too pessimistic in that assessment considering Johnson case. But a closer reading of the Johnson case shows my thesis is still sound. The Kansas court went through an exhaustive list of anti-worker reforms made by the Kansas legislature in 2011 and 2013 to that state’s workers’ compensation laws.  With the exception of using the AMA 6th, those anti-worker reforms are still law in Kansas. I hope the decision in Johnson will help advocates for injured workers rollback other negative changes made to workers’ compensation law in Kansas. But the changes to Kansas’ workers’ compensation laws came through the political arena and victories in the political arena are the only sure way to insure fair compensation for injured workers in Kansas and in the rest of the country.

I agree with the outcome and most of the reasoning supporting the Johnson decision. But I disagree with the court’s literary flourish arguing that injured workers aren’t heard in adminisatsrive hearings or bench  trials. The majority of my court room experience comes in what amount to bench trials in the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court. In my experience the injured worker gets to tell their story and — just as important – management witnesses are forced to answer for their treatment of injured workers as it relates to issues being tried. At least in Nebraska, trials in worrkers’ compensation cases can address that emotional need for justice outside fiancial compensation. But for most people, the finanical outcome of a case is more important than the process used to obtain the outcome.

Thomas Robinson, editor of the leading treatise on workers’ compensation law, stated the Kansas court’s focus on assigning fault for an injury misses the point of workers’ compensation which means defined compensation for a work injury regardless of fault. I agree with this point. I’ve written about the role of fault in the suppodedly no fault world of workers’ compnesation. I will be interested to read Robinson’s take on fault and workers’ compensation.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett & Moore, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Constitutional law, Kansas, Nebraska, Workers Compensation and tagged , , , , , , .

The case against “Ghosting” for employees

Posted on by

Employers are increasingly complaining of employees “ghosting” or leaving suddenly without notice. Temple Law Professor and author Brishen Rogers correctly pointed out on Twitter that employee ghosting is protected the by the 13th Amendment prohibition of slavery. Other commentators have pointed out that employers have been “ghosting” employees for many years and that some turnabout is to be expected as unemployment declines.

Employee “ghosting” is also the flip side of employment at-will. Employers are free to fire you at any time, but you are free to quit your job at any time without notice.

The concept of giving notice before quitting isn’t rooted in any legal requirement. But giving notice before leaving a job can give employees some legal benefits. Providing written notice can provide more protections to employees if done correctly.

Unemployment

In Nebraska, if you quit your job you have to prove you had good cause for the quit to get full unemployment benefits, whereas if you are fired your employer has to prove you committed misconduct in connection with your employment to deny you full benefits. Often when an employee gives two weeks’ notice, an employer will have them stop working before the two week notice period ends. In this situation an employee, for the purposes of unemployment benefits, has been fired. So unless the employer can prove the employee committed some misconduct, then they will receive full unemployment benefits.

Putting notice in writing can be helpful because it explains why you are leaving. Under Nebraska law, there are several reasons deemed by good cause for leaving. Having one of those reasons in a letter could help you receive unemployment benefits sooner.

I recently had an employee who was asked to submit a resignation letter due to alleged concerns about her job performance. My client was smart enough to write down that she would retract her resignation if performance improved. My client ended up winning her unemployment appeal due in part to that letter as it wasn’t clear that she really intended to resign.

Other employment laws

Written notice can also help in other cases. If an employee resigns due to workplace harassment, written notice of a quit would put an employer on notice of the harassment if it wasn’t done so already. Adding in that the resignation would be retracted if the harassment was addressed would also help.

A written notice that an employee is quitting because of a medical condition could prompt an attempt to accommodate that condition under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  I have seen written notice of quits because of medical conditions be helpful in winning benefits in workers’ compensation cases as well.

Giving notice is also helpful to an employee quits a new job for a new job that falls through. Courtesy can help an employee maintain a relationship with an employer and make it easier for an employee to go back to a job.

 

The offices of Rehm, Bennett & Moore, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in ADA, Harassment, Nebraska, Unemployment, Workers Compensation and tagged , , , , , , .

Lincoln needs more bus benches

Posted on by

Star Tran bus stop near 9th and P

Spending for Star Tran, Lincoln’s public transit system, will be an item of discussion as the city council holds a public hearing on the city buidget today. I agree with public transit advocate and retired attorney Richard Schmeling that Lincoln needs more bus benches and bus shelters.

According to Schemling, only 100 out of 800 stops have a bench and/or shelter. The number of bench/shelterless stops increased as Lincoln shifted routes onto arterial streets in a move that has increased ridership by 11 percent.

Bus benches and shelters are a matter of basic human dignity. The fact that someone taking the bus to work as a housekeeper or nursing aide can’t sit down or get out of the elements while waiting for transportation makes me feel sad and angry. The lack of benches and shelters is quite visible along South 13th Street with  groups of people stand along the street waiting for the bus.

Lincoln touts its innovation in transportation. We are testing a driverless shuttle. We have rental bikes. Lincoln also touts its use of green technology. We have a park bench/charging station powered and covered by a solar panel. Lincoln also touts its public art  which improves the quality of life in the city. I would like to see that same focus on innovation and aesthetics applied to improving the comfort and experience for riders of our public transportation system. This would raise the quality of life within the city of Lincoln.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett & Moore, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in City Council, Lincoln and tagged , , .