Nebraska Supreme Court rules on employment risk, attorney fees and third party claims

Posted on by

The Nebraska Supreme Court has made three recent rulings about workers’ compensation

Three important cases have recently come down from the Nebraska Supreme Court regarding workers’ compensation claims.

Probably the case with the biggest impact is Maroulakos v. Walmart case. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed a decision by the trial court that found that an injury was not compensable when a worker was injured because of an “idiopathic” fall. What makes this case distinct from its predecessors is that it appears as though there was possibly evidence that there was an increased risk to the injured worker, which could have made the idiopathic fall compensable. However, the trial court did not explore that option and the Supreme Court found that it could not make a determination on an issue that was not at issue during the trial court. In other words, it appears that the Maroulakos case puts an extra burden on the Plaintiff to ensure that an “increased danger” analysis is overtly pled and argued at trial for idiopathic falls. The concurrence in that opinion hints that the at the trial court level, the court probably should have conducted an analysis as to whether there was an increased-danger when there was evidence presented that could contribute to that analysis of an idiopathic fall.

Another recent case was Dragon v. Cheesecake Factory. In Dragon, the work comp case reached a settlement that was accomplished via a settlement release under Section 48-139(3). The settlement was not paid, however, within the 30-day limit proscribed in 48-139(4) and thus, the Plaintiff argued that he was entitled to a 50% penalty for the late payment. The trial court denied the penalty under a theory that it did not have authority to award a penalty after the release had already been signed. The Supreme Court overturned the finding of the trial court and awarded the penalty based on the fact that the Nebraska Legislature cleared up any ambiguity in the statute in awarding penalties for settlements that are not paid within 30 days.

The final case that recently came down worth discussing is Gimple v. Student Transp of America. In Gimple, there are two take-aways. First, if there is a third-party action, along with the work comp claim, the Work Comp Court does not authority to make a determination of future credits for the employer or work comp carrier based on any monies paid in that their-party action.

Second, if there is a stipulation and no dispute as to an injury; then, there is a permanent impairment assigned to that injury, the Defendant must pay the permanent partial disability in a timely manner, within 30 days. In other words, there is no reasonable controversy.

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 attorney fees, employment risk, Nebraska, third party claims, Workers Compensation and tagged , , , , .

What happens when an employee needs family leave after a work injury?

Posted on by

Taking leave to care for a family member can be complicated by a work injury

Work injuries create all sorts of unexpected complications for injured worker. One complication is what happens when an injured employee on alternate or light duty needs to take time away from work for a family emergency.

If the employee has been employed with the same employer for a year, worked more than 1250 hours during that year and the employer has more than 50 employees within a 75 mile radius, then the employee could take leave for up to 12 weeks under the Family Medical Leave Act without worrying about losing their job.

If the employee or employer is not covered by the Family Medical Leave Act, then things can get sticky for an injured worker as the employer is not obligated to provide unpaid family leave. In Nebraska, an employer is still obligated to pay temporary disability regardless of whether an employee is fired or quit.  But employers, especially ones that are self-insured for workers’ compensation, ignore the law which means that an employee has to wait for a hearing to get temporary disability benefits paid. There may also be a question as to whether an employer’s ability to accommodate a work injury but for a termination or quit should factor into how much an employee should get paid for temporary disability.

Although I haven’t encountered this issue, I suspect an FMLA eligibile employee who took family leave while on light duty could have an employer deny payment of temporary disability. Ultimately I believe a court would award temporary disability in that circumstance. In other words, the analysis for the purpsoses of workers’ compensation benefits would be the same even if the new employee has less job protections for taking family leave.

Short-term employees are already more vulnerable to injuries. Short-term employees also targeted for termination under policies that fire new employees for having “lost time” or “recordable” accidents. While you can, and I have, argued successfully those types of policies retaliate against new workers who get hurt at work, you can’t make the same argument about new employees who get fired for taking family leave. The law excludes new employees from the protections of the Family Medical Leave Act. The law allows employees to discriminate against new employees who need family leave. That’s not to say than a new employee who gets fired after taking leave can’t even have a wrongful termination case, but there would have to evidence of some unlawful motives for an employee to bring that 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 FMLA, temporary disability, Workers Compensation and tagged , , , , .

Ten years after the financial crisis, whistleblowers can only do so much

Posted on by

Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson with former President George W. Bush. Paulson’s former firm, Goldman Sachs, was among many Wall Street firms that benefited from federal bailouts 10 years ago.

This week marks the 10th Annivesary of the start of the financial crisis of 2008. I originally wrote the post below about DRT v. Somers in March but decided not to publish it for some reason. Over the lunch hour I read this piece from Wall Street pundit/apologist Aaron Ross Sorkin that made a bunch of lame excuses about how our politcal leaders handled the afternmath of the financial crisis. After reading that article I thought it would be a good idea to dust off my DRT v. Somers post. 

The United States Supreme Court just made it harder for employees to pursue retaliation cases against financial institutions when they are fired for reporting fraud.

In a unanimous opinion in Digital Realty Trust v. Somers authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the United States Supreme Court agreed with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that language within the Dodd-Frank Act that defined a whistleblower as someone who provided information to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) excluded employees who merely reported concerns about fraud internally.

The reason this decision is disturbing is that two other circuit courts and the Securities and Exchange Commission interpreted Dodd-Frank to extend whistleblower protections to those covered under the whistleblower provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley “Sarbox”, Sarbox allows employees to bring whistleblower complaints if they are terminated in retaliation for internal complaints. In the Somers case, a federal trial judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals both agreed that Somers could bring a Dodd-Frank case for being fired for making an internal complaint. 

While Sarbox and Dodd-Frank cases tend to overlap there are some key differences that are relevant to an employee bringing a retaliation claim. A Sarbox complaint requires an employee file a claim with OSHA within 180 days of the retaliation. Dodd-Frank allows an employee to file directly in court within 6 years of the retaliation. While a Dodd-Frank claim in easier to bring than a Sarbox claim, Sarbox allows for emotional distress damages in addition to attorney fees, backpay and re-instatement, while Dodd-Frank allows for double back pay, attorney fee, re-instatement but no general damages. While retaliation cases might be less valuable under Dodd-Frank than they would be under Sarbox, the employee would still be able to make a claim even if they waited more than 180 days from the retaliation and even if they didn’t report to the SEC or file with OSHA.

The 9th Circuit pointed out the fact that Sarbox claims included emotional distress damages while Dodd-Frank claims do not as one reason why an internal whistleblower could still bring a Dodd-Frank claim. Justice Ginsberg ignored the availability of emotional distress damages in Sarbox. Ginsberg seemed to be arguing that Dodd-Frank cases were more valuable, so they should require reporting to the SEC rather than just internal reporting. The 9th Circuit was correct in rejecting that reasoning, but unfortunately their opinion is not the law.

The 9th Circuit pointed out that Sarbox and Dodd-Frank have similar origins and purposes. University of Nebraska Law School Dean and whistleblower law expert Richard Moberly wrote that Sarbox and Dodd-Frank both encourage reporting of financial fraud.  Logically it makes sense that the whistleblower provisions of Dodd-Frank would add to provisions already within Sarbox as the laws have the same general purpose.

But Sarbox and Dodd-Frank have some differences in how they discourage fraudulent behavior. Sarbox is meant to punish employers who retaliate against whistleblowers, while Dodd-Frank encourages employees to report misconduct directly to the government by allowing employees to share in fines against the company.  Justice Ginsberg keyed on the difference between enforcement schemes under Dodd-Frank and Sarbox to argue the laws were distinguishable enough that internal reporting didn’t qualify as whistleblowing under Dodd-Frank.

By its language Somers only applies to Dodd-Frank whistleblower cases. Somers doesn’t overturn or even question precedent from anti-discrimination law (Title VII) and wage hour law (the Fair Labor Standards Act) that have permissive definition of protected activity that cover internal and informal opposition to unlawful conduct. But in less defined areas of retaliation and whistleblower law the Somers decision would certainly be persuasive authority to management-side lawyers who wish to narrowly define protected activity to defeat retaliation claims.

The SEC argued to keep internal whistleblowers covered by Dodd-Frank because internal reporting can fix problems without government intervention and for less expense. Even management-side firm Vedder Price stated in their analysis of the Somers decision that the decision could raise compliance costs because the decision would encourage employees to report directly the SEC rather than internally. It’s ironic conservative Justices like John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch approve of expanding government intervention into private firms when more cost-effective solutions are available. Cynically it would appear that the Somers decision is a gift to management side lawyers. Whistleblowers cases are easier to defend as a result of Somers, but Somers could mean more administrative charges which means more billable hours.

The Somers decision is even more galling considering the Senate, with the support of 17 of 49 members of the Democratic caucus, voted to water down reforms under Dodd-Frank.  One criticism of Sarbox was that it didn’t root out fraud because it merely punished employers for firing whistleblowers rather than encouraging early outside reporting. To some extent, financial whistleblower law assumes that problems with financial markets is a problem of bad people who break laws rather than bad laws.

The Enron scandal is one that is largely attributed to accounting fraud. That is what Sarbox was passed to remedy. But the role of over-the-counter derivatives, in other words unregulated bets, on electricity markets is an under-appreciated cause of Enron’s downfall. Enron was a proponent of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 because the reform made betting on electricity markets easier .  Enron was the canary in the coal mine when it came to the dangers of free-for-all financial speculation. Sarbox was at best a half-measure in response to Enron. Whistleblower laws can’t be relied upon to maintain our confidence in financial markets when the most dangerous financial practices are perfectly legal. Republicans and pro-business Democrats seem to be ignoring this conclusion.

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 Dodd-Frank, retaliation, Sarbox, Whistleblower and tagged , , , .

Thanks for reading Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Watch

Posted on by

My article in Trial Magazine started out as a post on this blog

If you are a member of The American Association of Justice (AAJ) you can read my article “Portable Benefits and The Gig Economy” in this month’s edition of Trial Magazine. If you are a plaintiff’s lawyer and not an AAJ member, you can click here to join AAJ.

If you are a non-plaintiff’s lawyer reader of this blog you can click here or here for what amount to rough drafts of the Trial article. (Sorry the article is copyrighted to AAJ and only available to members)

Briefly, the main takeaway from my article is that while the fight over worker misclassification as it relates to the gig economy is an old fight, the move to develop a separate employee benefits scheme is a new issue. Of course, some more senior practitioners, namely Tom Domer, have pointed out privately that remedies like today’s “portable” benefits” proposals were proposed in the late 19t/early 20th century when workers’ compensation laws were being proposed, debated and drafted.

I assume that I will be writing more about portable benefits in the future as events and time warrant. But for now, my next big blog project is going to be exploring how employment risk fits in within the so-called “grand bargain” of workers’ compensation. My thesis is that workers’ compensation developed in response to new risks from the newly industrializing economy of the late 19th century. Farm and domestic workers were excluded from those laws as judges in the late 19th century thought risks of those occupations where inherent. Putting aside legitimate concerns about how this excluded women and African-Americans from workers’ compensation, I think this exclusion is why employment risk is such a hotly contested issue as industrial jobs decline and service jobs increase.

This exclusion of workers from workers’ compensation, which is inherent in workers’ compensation, is one reason why I don’t like the term “grand bargain” in describing the origins of workers’ compensation. My dislike of the term grand bargain will probably be fleshed out over the next few months as well.

So thanks for continuing to read Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Watch. Thanks to all the attorneys, whether on the worker or management side, who take the time to write original content based on their experience in practice. I gain insight from what you write and I will continue to try to provide insight to lawyers and non-lawyers alike about workers’ compensation and employment law.

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, portable benefits, The Grand Bargain, Workers Compensation and tagged , , , .

Two worker deaths lead to criminal charges for Omaha corporation

Posted on by

A memorial for two workers killed in Omaha in 2015. The employer is facing criminal charges.

An Omaha business is facing federal criminal charges in connection with the death of two employees in 2015.

Adrian LaPour and Dallas Foulk were killed on April 14, 2015 due to a fire in started by chemicals in a rail tanker car that they were cleaning. They were working for Nebraska Railcar Cleaning Services which had a long history of OSHA violations.

The criminal charges in this case stem from obstructing the investigation of the accident and violating federal safety rules rather than the death of the employee. In the rare cases where employers are prosecuted for workplace deaths, those types of charges are typical. Former Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship was convicted in 2016 for violating federal mine safety rules in connection with the death of 29 miners in West Virginia in 2010.

The charges provided some sense of psychic justice for the longtime girlfriend of one the victims. That sense of psychic justice is often missing in work injury cases where an employer is at fault. Workers compensation benefits are limited, OSHA fines are often almost laughable and negligence cases may be difficult to prove. Even if a family can get a sizeable amount of money for a workplace death of a loved one, money is not a perfect substitute for the loss of a loved one. A criminal prosecution can help address emotional needs in a way a civil or administrative sanction can’t.

Criminal prosecutions also deter wrongful conduct by corporations and their owners.  Rod Rehm practiced criminal law in the 1970s and 1980s before focusing on workers compensation and personal injury cases. He has spoken out in favor prosecuting employers for manslaughter in connection with workplace deaths and criminal prosecution for employers who don’t carry workers compensation insurance. I commend Nebraska’s  U.S  Attorney,  Joe Kelly, for exercising his prosecutorial discretion and charging the owners of Nebraska Railcar Cleaining Services.

h/t to www.fairwarning.com for their reporting.

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 criminal law, Nebraska, OSHA, Workers Compensation and tagged , , , , .

Trump Policies Bad for Workers’ Compensation

Posted on by

Dr. Richard Victor

Today’s post comes from guest author Thomas Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.

Dr. Richard Victor, an economist who founded the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) 35 years ago, just presented a paper at the WCRI National Conference in Boston.  He indicated that federal policies on immigration and health insurance promise to make worse the challenges the United States faces by an aging workforce and a widespread labor shortage. He noted that workers’ compensation claims could double and overall costs could expand by over 300% in the next dozen years, without any increase in benefits to workers.  External forces could bring far more cases into the system because of a number of forces, including an aging workforce, labor shortage, slowdown in immigration, and more shifting to workers’ compensation claims that should be paid by group health insurance. Dr. Victor projected current claims out a dozen years to 2030 indicating that claims should actually be down to about ¾ of today’s numbers, but external factors will more than overtake that favorable percentage. Labor shortages caused by baby boomers retiring will increase injury rates.  Research indicates that the older workforce will mean an increase in lost work days and more injuries and a real impact on labor shortage as more baby boomers retire. Dr. Victor indicated “These labor shortages, which will be longer and deeper than anything we have experienced, will lead to significant increase in workers’ compensation claims and longer durations of disability.” During a period of labor shortages, employers relax hiring standards and hire workers they would not have hired in a normal labor market, including workers who are less capable. The overall labor shortfall leads to more workers’ compensation claims.

The Immigration Factor:

Economists have seen immigration as a factor that mitigates against the impact of the labor shortage. The Trump Administration, changing federal immigration policy, will further tighten labor markets and prolong the duration of a labor shortage. Moreover, Trump’s “anti-immigration rhetoric” also discourages people to come to America.  In health care, Victor noted that one in six health care workers is foreign-born including 27% of physicians and surgeons, 15% of nurses, and 22% of home health aide, each of which effects the workers’ compensation system.

Health Insurance

A shortage of people with adequate health insurance is also a problem for workers’ compensation. Health insurance deductibles have risen from the hundreds to many thousands of dollars, and this new reality causes more workers to go without or delay getting medical care for an injury or illness. When they can no longer ignore their condition, many claim it as a work-related condition and seek workers’ compensation (he cited a Rand Research study indicating workers with high deductible or co-insurance plan postponed care in over one-third of cases of the most common kind of workers’ compensation claims – soft tissue injuries.” As the number of workers who lose their insurance grows (since the Trump Administration and Congress ended subsidies and other aspects of the Affordable Care Act) case shifting form health insurance to workers’ compensation could have a major effect, ballooning workers’ compensation claims by as much as 35% in the next dozen years.

Victor’s conclusion: “You end up with a 300% increase in workers’ compensation costs without increasing benefits to injured workers.”

 

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 Government, Legislation, Workers' Compensation and tagged , , .

Are surveillance drones watching injured workers in Nebraska?

Posted on by

An eye in the sky watching injured workers?

Nearly 7 years ago, I wrote a blog about employers and insurance companies using surveillance of injured workers to fight paying workers’ compensation benefits in hopes of finding any reason to reduce or deny an injured workers name. Recently, our Plaintiff lawyer colleagues in other states have noticed use of drones for video surveillance of their clients.

I have not personally experienced “drone surveillance” of any of my clients yet, but I am sure the insurance companies will soon find a way to follow suit in Nebraska. In discussions with other workers compensation lawyers throughout the country, other lawyers have that mentioned insurance companies have used drone-surveillance against their clients in multiple states.

Is drone surveillance even legal? Well, that might depend on what state you live in. However, the FAA does have guidelines on the use of drones and restrictions of how those drones may be operated. Some surveillance tactics may run afoul FAA rules.

Also, many states have enacted their own laws to protect citizen’s privacy from drone-use and cameras. Here are a few examples:

Arkansas forbids the use of drones to invade privacy

California forbids the use of drones to invade a person’s privacy and to record anyone without his or her consent.

Texas Code Section 423.002(a) lays out specific situations in which drones with cameras may be used and insurance surveillance is not one of them.

Virginia makes it a criminal misdemeanor if drones are being used to harass if given notice to desist.  

Florida also prohibits a person from using a drone to record someone if such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the presumption being that someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy if they are on their own property. 

While it is good that states are acting to protect privacy from the intrusion of aerial drones, there may be a legal fight over whether federal rules should preempt state laws about drones.

While aerial drones may be used to sniff out workers’ compensation fraud by employees, I doubt they will be effective in stamping out the larger problem of employer and provider fraud in workers’ compensation.

In summary, while I have not seen it in Nebraska yet, it is a possibility that some day drone surveillance will be used here. However, given all of the regulations (along with the cost and conspicuousness of drones) it is doubtful that drone surveillance would be used. If it is used, Nebraska may have to enact some laws similar to these other states with regards to drone use.

 

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 Fraud, Nebraska, surveillance, Workers Compensation and tagged , , , , .