Rethinking CDC opioid rules could mean a more humane future for injured workers

Posted on by

The American Medical Association (AMA) recommended that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) revise guidelines implemented in 2016 about prescribing opioids that they believe are harmful to cancer, sickle cell anemia, hospice and long-term pain patients.

The CDC is looking to revise guidelines on opioids later this year. Rethinking prescription drug policy may impact how workers compensation claim are administered.

In my view the insurance industry took advantage of the opioid crisis as an opportunity to change laws to their advantage. Laws regulating prescriptions effectively limit the cost of medical care and allow workers compensation insurers to wash their hands of ongoing medical expenses. Regulation of prescribing opioids was also floated as an idea to further employer-control of injured worker medical care.

AMA calls out pharmacy benefit managers

The AMA specifically mentioned how pharmacy benefit managers arbitrarily limit prescription doses. But even states that enthusiastically enacted measures to limit opioids were unhappy by the high prices charged by pharmacy benefit managers. But while drugs are regulated at a federal level, the Supreme Court appeared to give the greenlight to states looking to regulate pharmacy benefit managers over price concerns.

The “opioid crisis”: health crisis or moral panic?

In their release the AMA pointed out that while the CDC guidelines were meant to reduce overdose deaths from opioids, opioid overdose deaths have increased even as opioid prescriptions have decreased.  It seems the driver of the overdose deaths is the opioid fentanyl. Fentanyl overdoes are 12 times higher than now than they were in 2012, according the CDC. The danger of fentanyl often comes from illegally produced and sold product.

Correlation isn’t always causation, but fentanyl deaths have risen as legal opioid prescriptions have decreased. This may be one reason why the CDC is rethinking their prescription opioid guidelines.

But if draconian limits on prescription opioids don’t serve public health, what purpose do they serve? Tarence Ray doesn’t answer this exact question in his recent article “United in Rage” about the response to opioid addiction in the Appalachian regions of Kentucky. Ray states that the response to opioid use wasn’t centered on treating people, but rather on criminally punishing users, community vigilantism and generally stigmatizing opioid users.

The AMA criticism of the CDC guidelines address how pain and pain patients are stigmatized through the CDC guidelines. Of course, injured workers are already stigmatized, so injured workers who need pain medication get doubly stigmatized.

Maybe a rethink of prescription opioid guidelines by the CDC, could lead to more humane treatment of injured workers in the future.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, 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 Uncategorized and tagged , , , .

Is Nebraska workers’ compensation law clear on when an insurer/employer can make a plaintiff submit to a medical exam?

Posted on by

What right does an employer/insurer have to make an injured worker submit to a medical examination? I think there is ambiguity between statute and court rules in Nebraska.

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-134, an employee must submit to an examination from time to time during the continuance of their disability. Sounds like and open and shut case. But, consider the following:

Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-163 authorizes the court to enact procedural rules. Nebraska Workers Compensation Court Rule 4 enacted the Nebraska Court Rules of Discovery in Civil Cases.

Discovery Rule 6-335 authorizes medical examinations only upon motion for good cause shown. To me, that means an employer/insurer would need to make a motion for a defense examination show the court why the examination is necessary.

I realize this is a somewhat controversial proposition.  But even if you blanche at applying the idea in its entirety, a less controversial application of Rule 35 would be to require a motion and proof of good cause if an insurer/employer is ordering a functional capacity evaluation. (FCE) FCEs are done by physical therapist and physical therapists aren’t physicians under Nebraska Workers Compensation Court Rules 49(P) or 10.

I believe 6-335 allows examinations from a broader class of examiners, but it clearly imposes more procedural and evidentiary burdens on defendants. Requiring court orders for examinations would also encourage defendants to see if plaintiffs would agree to certain examiners in order to forgo a motion where they would have the burden of proof.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, 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 Uncategorized and tagged , , , , .

The impact of the Biden anti-trust executive order on workers’ compensation

Posted on by

Earlier this month, the Biden administration announced a broad executive order designed to counter anti-competitive practices by business for the benefit of consumers and workers.

The Biden order concerns anti-trust law which regulates business practices. I believe the proposals will have some benefit to workers hurt at work. But I also believe that more aggressive measures not mentioned in the Biden order would have a stronger impact on injured workers. Unfortunately, from a practical perspective, executive orders and administrative rule making could be blocked by Federal courts.

Non-compete agreements for fast-food and other low wage workers

The Biden order would seek to have the Federal Trade Commission, FTC,  seek to eliminate non-compete agreement among fast workers. These agreements have drawn bi-partisan ire and even merited a trademark “Come on” from President Biden.

In the context of workers compensation, these non-compete agreements can deter injured workers from seeking lighter work at competing employers.

While non-compete agreements among restaurant and retail workers are broadly opposed, other anti-trust measures are more controversial, but probably more beneficial to injured employees.

Workers compensation and coordination

One school of thought on anti-trust holds that anti-trust law should regulate “coordination” rights” regardless of whether a corporation is coordinating with other entitles or coordinating within a business. I wrote last summer how anti-trust enforcements centered on coordination rights could limit worker misclassification. Anti-trust enforcement focused on coordination rights could also crack down on the use of occupational medicine clinics and medical examiners used by insurers/employers to reduce workers’ compensation benefits paid to workers.

The Biden order does not address these practices. But I think the order makes some nods towards the coordination rights theory of anti-trust by limiting how employers share information about benefit levels. But the main thrust of the Biden order is to ensure competition between businesses.

But even this less aggressive view of anti-trust is anathema to proponents of the “consumer welfare” school of anti-trust who hold that monopoly or oligopoly is fine so long as consumers get cheap or free stuff.

Anti-trust and the federal courts

Of course, the consumer welfare school of anti-trust is influential, if not dominant, in the Federal courts. Ultimately, most if not all of the  new proposed rules in the Biden order, will be challenged in the federal courts. Though in the past, federal judges have deferred to the judgment of executive agencies in rule making, federal courts are less deferential to executive branch rule-making in recent years

Ultimately, if  anti-trust law is going to benefit workers, those changes to anti-trust laws need to come from Congress and state legislatures.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, 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 Uncategorized and tagged .

A new federal thumb on the scale for COVID occupational disease claims?

Posted on by

Last month the U.S. Department of Labor announced an emergency standard for COVID-19 safety for health care workers due to the risk of COVID-19 exposure.  The regulation may make it easier for workers in states like Nebraska to bring workers’ compensation cases for COVID-19 exposure on the job.

Nebraska allows workers to recover for occupational diseases in addition to injuries or conditions caught directly arising out of and in the course of their work duties. An occupational disease is one that is particular to an occupation or line of work. The Department of Labor’s findings about COVID-19 exposure in health care, could be a thumb on the scale for workers, or their surviving dependents, trying to bring a workers’ compensation claim.

While the new rule is helpful, it may not be game changing. Workers compensation laws are state laws. A federal regulation wouldn’t bind a state court or agency deciding a workers’ compensation case. Additionally, many states have passed COVID-19 presumptions under their state’s workers compensation laws for health care workers. This means that if certain classes of workers catch COVID-19, it is presumed to be work-related. This forces employers to show some non-work-related exposure to avoid liability,

Nebraska has not passed any sort of COVID-19 presumption for any workers.

Some employee and public health advocates have criticized the new standard as not covering more workers. I sympathize with that view. I will not blindly cheer for a Democratic administration. The Obama administration left a lot to be desired when it came to workplace safety issues – a lot. But the new COVID-19 standard for health care workers is an improvement on no standard.

Earlier in the pandemic, when Eugene Scalia was Labor Secretary during the Trump administration, the Department of Labor implemented rules that it made it harder for employees to track workplace COVID exposure. I can’t argue that a thumb on the scale for workers/labor is better than a thumb on the scale for management/capital. But the federal government needs to be more aggressive in enforcing workplace safety rules.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, 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 Uncategorized and tagged , , , .

How essential workers are excluded from the “grand bargain” of workers’ compensation

Posted on by

If you asked the average person on the street, “If convenience store clerks at the same store were subjected to violent crimes, including murder, three times in the last five times, do you think you could bring a negligence case if the store failed to protect its worker from a violent attack ?” Most people would say yes.

Candidly, many people with legal training would say the same yes, but for the exclusive remedy of workers compensation.

The exclusive remedy rule is at the heart of the so-called “grand bargain” of workers compensation that provides limited benefits in exchange compensation regardless of employee or employer fault.

Like most workers compensation lawyers, I can recite that last paragraph in sleep. But sometimes employer-conduct can and should cause workers compensation lawyers to put aside technical legal thinking.

The convenience store I described in the first paragraph is the Kwik Shop at 14th and Adams in Lincoln, Nebraska. A clerk at that store was assaulted in late June. A clerk was murdered in 2016 and there was in assault on a clerk in 2020.

That store has done little to protect workers from violent crime. But workers compensation laws in Nebraska do little to incentive stores to protect late night convenience store clerks because they don’t cover purely mental trauma injuries. In other words, if a robber points a gun at a clerk, but doesn’t hurt them physically, that clerk can’t collect workers compensation benefits for the mental trauma.

But even if there is a physical injury, an employee is limited to benefits based on their wages. Employees don’t have the option of filing a negligence case where damages, in theory, are unlimited.

Retail workers are in a similar boat to other essential workers who had difficulties claiming workers’ compensation benefits due to COVID-19 exposure. In order for COVID-19 exposure to be covered by workers’ compensation they need to show either the injury arose out of and in the course and scope of employment or is a disease particular to their job. Those can be difficulty standards to meet and it prevented many workers from even seeking benefits.

Of course some states created presumptions of workers’ compensation coverage for COVID-19 for essential workers, but we did not in Nebraska.

So in short, essential workers are limited to workers compensation coverage for obvious on-the-job hazards that could be prevented or mitigated by their employers. But due to the structure of workers’ compensation laws, many of those hazards aren’t covered by workers’ compensation.

Of course other essential workers such as delivery drivers and taxi drivers are defined as contractors as so-called gig economy companies attempt to re-write our social insurance and employee classification laws to enrich their shareholders.

I think the structural weaknesses of workers compensation laws lead attorneys to look for ways to sue employers in tort, bad faith or even under retaliation laws. But these laws can be watered down by courts and civil litigation only pays people for harms after they happen. Stronger workers compensation laws that protected all workers from obvious hazards could make other types of litigation less necessary.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, 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 Uncategorized and tagged , , , , .

How the federal government, the State of Nebraska and the City of Lincoln fail convenience store clerks

Posted on by

A clerk at the Kwik Shop at 14th and Adams Street in Lincoln was severely beaten during a robbery last weekend when a robber reached for cash in a cash register, pushed through a barrier and jumped over the counter to beat the clerk.

News reports about that store reveal a clerk was murdered in 2016, a clerk was assaulted in 2020 and the store was robbed in 2008. The Kwik Shop at 14th and Adams is the proverbial poster child for the failure of the federal government, the State of Nebraska and the City of Lincoln to effectively protect convenience store workers.

How the federal government fails in convenience store clerks

In the wake of the July 2016 murder of a clerk at the 14th and Adams Kwik Shop, I wrote about OSHA’s failure to implement safety standards for convenience stores. The Indiana Department of Labor did a study about convenience stores and showed barriers that prevented robbers from reaching into cash registers and jumping behind counters deterred robbers.

Despite the history of violence at the store, the Kwik Shop at 14th and Adams Street still lacks those protections.

An OSHA rule would let OSHA cite convenience stores specifically for failing to protect workers from violence.

How the state of Nebraska fails convenience store clerks

The state of Nebraska has failed to implement and statutory law or regulations that protect convenience store clerks. In theory workers compensation laws regulate working conditions by making employers pay for injuries to their employees. But retail workers are not compensated for solely mental injuries (known in workers compensation lingo as “mental-mental”). So for example, if a convenience store clerk has a gun pointed in their face, but not physically assaulted, that mental trauma is not covered by workers’ compensation.

But if convenience store owners did have to pay for mental trauma injuries to their employees, they would find ways to minimize the chance of those mental trauma injuries. Measures like bulletproof glass would make it harder for robbers to jump over counters and to threaten workers with guns.

The State of Nebraska has workers compensation for solely mental injuries for first responders.  Recent legislation has expanded the number of employees who are deemed first responders and has made it easier for some first responders to prove their cases for solely mental injuries. No legislation has been introduced that would allow retail workers or convenience store clerks from receiving mental-mental benefits.

How the City of Lincoln fails convenience store clerks

Some cities have implemented safety standards for convenience store clerks. That list does not include Lincoln, Nebraska. I think public safety officials in Lincoln have also displayed a somewhat cavalier attitude about convenience store violence. After the murder of the clerk at the 14th and Adams, Kwik Shop, then Public Safety Director Tom Casady talked about how rare convenience store murders and shootings were. This despite the fact that same store was robbed in 2008. Lincoln’s then police chief, Tom Bliemeister stated that he was unsure about why Lincoln has above-average murders in 2016. Why that question may have some merit, research was clear about the risks to employees working late night retail. That store had previously been subject to a robbery. I think public safety officials in Lincoln don’t think about how public safety is often workplace safety.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, 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 Uncategorized and tagged , , , , .

Will the Biden administration create a federal heat standard?

Posted on by

Nebraska and much of the western United States have been struck with sweltering temperatures this week. The hot weather serves to remind me that there is still no federal standard for workplace heat exposure.

NBC ran a story earlier this week that updated and explained efforts to create a national standard for heat exposure in the workplace. The Department of Labor, through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, can implement such a rule. Some states, like California, have implemented rules about heat exposure in the workplace. The California rule seems like it codifies common sense about water breaks and shade.

Hopefully our new Labor Secretary, Marty Walsh a former union leader, implements a heat exposure rule. The Obama administration DOL rejected a heat exposure rule in the blazing hot summer of 2012.

Heat exposure and workers compensation

Nebraska does not have a heat exposure rule like California. However Nebraska workers compensation law covers heat-related injuries. At the very least, workers’ compensation provides some baseline level of regulation for employers when it comes to heat. But compensation in workers’ compensation cases is limited and no amount of money can replace the life of a family member. Additionally, some heat-related injuries like heart attacks have tougher causation standard which make it more difficult for workers or their dependent family members from recovering benefits.

The advantage of an OSHA rule for heat exposure is that means that OSHA can sanction and shame employers who violate the rule.

Workplace heat exposure and climate change

Climate change is expected to raise summer temperatures in Lincoln, Nebraska by 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050 and by 11 degrees by 2100. Heat will be an even larger occupational risk than it is today. Chicago experienced a heat wave in 1995 that killed 749 people. This little remembered natural disaster could be a precursor for more heat-related health problems and deaths in the future. One argument against a national heat standard is that it doesn’t account for “regional variations” in climate. But if climate scientists are correct, most if not all, areas of the United States will be at real risk for heat-related injuries and illnesses in the future. OSHA and Congress should take action to protect workers.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, 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 Uncategorized and tagged , , , , .

Yes, your employer can require you to take the COVID-19 vaccine

Posted on by

Last week the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) affirmed that employers could require employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine so long as they comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other anti-discrimination laws,

While most people were happy to receive COVID-19 vaccines, some can’t receive the vaccine because of either medical, religious reasons or pregnancy. Some just refuse to get vaccinated period.

So what options do employees who are unable or unwilling to take the vaccine have on the job?

On the flip side, do employees have legal protections against co-workers or employers who refuse to protect employees from the risk of COVID-19.

Employer-mandated vaccines

The health care industry has dealt with mandatory vaccinations in the context of the flu virus for years. In short, the accommodation, either for medical or religious reasons, was often to wear a mask.

Obviously, some employees refuse to wear masks. In fairness, the use of masks for flu prevention before the COVID-19 pandemic was questioned. There is also a strain of disinformation circulating on social media that goes along the lines of: I have a medical reason not to get vaccinated or wear a mask and under HIPPA no one can ask me for that reason. If they do ask, I can sue them. Another myth involved the 4th Amendment right to privacy which only applies to government and not private employers.

This is a blatant falsehood. Anytime a worker is asking for an accommodation for medical condition, whether a work injury or personal injury, the employee gives up a fair amount of privacy as to that medical condition. Yes, employers are required to reasonably accommodate disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. But in order to ask for a reasonable accommodation an employee often needs to share detailed medical information with their employer.

So in short, if you refuse an employer request to take a vaccine, you need a good reasons and should be able to substantiate it and share that reason with your employer.

I am pro-vaccine. I also believe vaccination policy is a workplace safety issue for reasons explained below. But I feel some sympathy with those subjected to mandatory vaccines at work. Throughout the pandemic, business has denied liability for COVID-19 spread in the workplace. But if the reasons for mandatory vaccinations is employee and customer safety, how can business turn around and argue that they aren’t liable for COVID exposure in the workplace? It seems like the contradiction can be reconciled through employers desire to exercise dictatorial control over their employees in the workplace.

What about workplace safety

This post my seem like I’m being overly sympathetic to COVID deniers and anti-maskers. I’m not. I am very disturbed that these types have taken to social media to attack former OSHA deputy assistant secretary, Jordan Barab, for raising serious concerns about the lack of OSHA guidance in retail workplaces in light of the latest CDC guidance that states vaccinated people can go largely to unmasked indoors.

Workers who are still concerned about COVID-19 exposure are in a difficult spot. While workers in certain industries can sue employers directly for safety violations, workers in the retail industry cannot. They need to rely on state law claims if they want to take direct action. I think one good idea for legislation would be to create a whistleblower act for retail workers.

OSHA is starting to sue employers for retaliating against employees, but those suits are just now starting well over a year into the pandemic. While it’s good that OSHA is starting to bring cases on behalf of employers, OSHA only brings suits in a small number of cases where retaliation is alleged.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, 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 Uncategorized and tagged , .