Center for Progressive Reform Launches National Database of Crimes Against Workers

Posted on by

Today’s post comes from guest author Paul J. McAndrew, Jr., from Paul McAndrew Law Firm.

Every year are a few work-fatalities that garner criminal prosecution and conviction. This is out the thousands of work-fatalities that occur every year. Until now, there’s been no one keeping a record of these fatality-causing events.

Now, the Center for Progressive Reform’s (CPR) Katie Tracy has reviewed court records, investigation files, and news stories to identify them many of them. After assembling information on more than 75 criminal cases from 17 states, she knew it was time to share all of it.

The result is CPR’s user friendly and publicly-available at Crimes Against Workers Database. I encourage you to explore this valuable tool. We believe that the awareness caused by sharing this information nationally can be a catalyst for legislators and others to understand the scope and scale of these crimes.

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 Workers' Compensation, Workplace Injury and tagged , .

Long Lonesome Highway West Of Omaha*: Traveling And Employment Risk In Workers’ Compensation

Posted on by

Employment risk and travelling legally intertwined for the purposes of workers’ compensation. For a workers’ compensation lawyer in Nebraska, they are also intertwined on a personal level.

Back on Friday January 12th, I drove 40 minutes south to Beatrice, Nebraska for a workers’ compensation trial where the main issue of the case was whether an employee who injured herself going out to roll up her car windows during a rain storm had an injury that related to her employment.

After that trial, I drove about an hour west for a client meeting in Thayer County and returned to Lincoln. I stayed up late the night before and woke up early that morning getting ready for a difficult trial. It was a long drive home.

Four weeks later, on Friday February 9th, I filed my final brief in the Beatrice case from a truck stop in Grand Island after a deposition and client meeting in Grand Island. I probably could have driven back to Lincoln and filed my brief, but I wanted to get my brief filed so I didn’t have to worry about it and potentially severe winter weather on the drive home.

Earlier this week, I negotiated a settlement in another case while traveling from Pierce County in northeast Nebraska back to Lincoln. I finalized the settlement with the opposing attorney while they were travelling.

Fatigue, weather and the temptation of using mobile devices while driving are risks for a workers’ compensation lawyer in Nebraska or anyone who must drive long distances for work in Nebraska or anywhere else. For white collar employees like me, driving is by far the biggest occupational hazard that would be covered under the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act.

Nebraska law holds that employees injured while travelling for work are covered by workers’ compensation so long as they are engaged in the employer’s business. This is referred to as the commercial traveler rule. The question becomes what exactly is the employer’s business? This question can arise for all employees, not just travelling employees. In my case involving the employee who hurt herself going outside to roll up her car windows in a rainstorm, the court found that employee’s injury was covered by workers’ compensation because she was taking a break for personal convenience. Injuries that take place during breaks for personal comfort or convenience are generally held to be compensable or covered by workers’ compensation.

In the context of a travelling employee, if I had injured myself last Tuesday afternoon while getting lunch at a Subway in York, that injury probably would have been covered by workers’ compensation.

But not all injuries on a job site or while travelling for work are compensable. If an employee is injured while doing something strictly for a personal reason not connected to work, then that injury is not compensable. For example, an injury while travelling to an extra-marital rendezvous during a business trip would likely not be covered by workers’ compensation.

While injuries incurred during personal comfort breaks such as bathroom or meal breaks tend to be covered, injuries while an employee engages in an act of personal convenience are more controversial. They are what we call in the lawyer trade “fact intensive inquiries.” In layman’s terms, it depends on the circumstances. Is the break paid? What are the break policies? How does the break benefit the employer? How much did the errand or break deviate from employment duties? What are the exact employment duties? Injuries involving breaks for personal convenience present difficult factual and legal questions to which there are no easy one-size-fits-all answers.

*Yes, I am paraphrasing “Turn the Page” by Bob Seger and The Silver Bullet Band. For the record, the original “Turn the Page” is far superior to the Metallica cover.

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 employment law, Workers' Compensation and tagged , , , , , , .

Occupational Skin Diseases

Posted on by

Thanks to Anthony Lucas from The Jernigan Law Firm about this post on occupational skin diseases.

Occupational skin diseases are one of the most common occupational diseases. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health estimates that in the United States more than 13 million workers are potentially exposed to chemicals that can be absorbed through their skin. In 2015, the last year for which data is available, over 15% of the reported occupational diseases were skin diseases.

 

These diseases include, but are not limited to, contact dermatitis (eczema), allergic dermatitis, skin cancers, and infections. Contact dermatitis, which has symptoms of painful and itchy skin, blisters, redness, and swelling, is the most commonly reported occupational skin disease. Workers in food service, cosmetology, health care, agriculture, cleaning, painting, mechanics, and construction industries and sectors are at risk of developing these diseases.

 

This type of occupational disease is clearly preventable. To control and prevent exposure to chemicals that cause occupational skin diseases, OSHA recommends that employers switch to less toxic chemicals, redesign the work process to avoid the splashes or immersion, and have employees wear protective gloves and clothing.

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 Occupational Disease and tagged , , , , .

Compstitutional Law 101: Part 2: Will Sveen signal a move to judicially dismantle the “grand bargain”?

Posted on by

Watch out for what these three could say in Sveen v. Melin

WILG is hosting a summit on the constitutional challenges in workers’ compensation on April 18th, I won’t be able to attend, but this post and my last post are my contribution to this ongoing discussion.

Stating that “a seemingly obscure case could have far-reaching implications” is one of the most overused clichés in legal blogging and journalism.  But a case involving a dispute over the proceeds of a life insurance policy might impact the constitutional basis for workers’ compensation and other state laws protecting employees.

In March, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sveen v. Melin (paywall). In Sveen, a former spouse was challenging a Minnesota law automatically removing a spouse as beneficiary of an insurance policy upon divorce. The grounds for the challenge is the so-called contracts clause of the United States Constitution which prohibits states from passing laws that impair the obligation of a contract.

Pro-corporate legal commentators have long lamented the demise of the contracts clause at the expense of laws enacted by states under 10th Amendment police powers. When these pundits and academics write about a “contracts clause revival”, they are really writing about diminishing the rights of states to enact laws under their police powers.

One of the most important set of state laws enacted under police powers are workers’ compensation laws. In New York Central Railroad v. White  state workers’ compensation laws were found to be constitutionally enacted under a state’s 10th Amendment police powers.  State laws regulating workplace safety and the ability to injured employees to seek legal redress were one of the primary drivers for the broad recognition of police powers in the late 19th century. A good discussion of the background behind the expansion of state police powers is found in the 1898 Supreme Court case of Holden v. Hardy.  In short, the Supreme Court found that state workplace safety laws were a response to the new industrial economy of the late 19th century and valid exercises of state police powers.

University of Chicago Law Professor Richard Epstein argued that minimum wage laws violated the contracts clause.  It’s not much of an intellectual stretch to argue that mandatory workers’ compensation laws would violate the contracts clause using Epstein’s interpretation of the contracts clause. A gig economy employer like Uber subjected to a state workers’ compensation law might argue that they should not be subjected to such a law under the contracts clause.

On April 2nd the Supreme Court reversed 70 years of precdent in narrowly construing exceptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act in the Navarro case. Navarro will likely have the effect of pushing plaintiffs to file more wage and hour cases under state laws. A revived contracts clause could cut off or curtail opportunities for justice for victims of wage theft in state court.

A potential contracts clause revival should concern advocates for injured workers for other reasons. In recent years, attorneys for injured workers have had a fair amount of success in overturning anti-worker changes to workers’ compensation laws based on state constitutions. That avenue would likely be blocked with a full-blown contracts clause revival.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, state laws regulating workplace conditions were struck down under 14th Amendment substantive due process. But substantive due process also allows claims for a broad variety of civil rights that are disliked by judicial conservatives, so the substantive due process clause is disfavored by courts.  The contracts clause allows courts to strike down worker-friendly state laws without creating a mechanism for expanding rights for suspect classes of individuals like prisoners or victims of police brutality. In New York Central v. White, the Supreme Court considered and rejected arguments overturning workers’ compensation laws on substantive due process grounds and contracts clause grounds.

Finally, a broad interpretation of the contracts clause would allow the Supreme Court to overturn state workers’ compensation laws while still maintaining the narrowed interpretation of interstate commerce the Roberts court appear to be endorsing in NFIB v. Sebelius. As I wrote in a post last week, a narrow construction of the commerce clause could be a high hurdle in enacting worker-friendly chagnes to workers’ compensation laws on a federal level.

Sveen v. Melin will likely be decided this spring. If the Supreme Court strikes down the Minnesota law based on the contracts clause, I will be interested to read the language of the opinion. I will also be interested in reading any concurring opinions from hard core conservatives like Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito as those opinions could be a clue as to where the court could be going on contracts clause jurisprudence. It is unlikely that Sveen v. Melin will be grounds to invalidate state workers’ compensation laws. Supreme Court decisions are limited to actual cases and controversies that are presentd to them. But Sveen could be another step in undercutting New Deal and Progressive Era refroms.  The Supreme Court has been chipping away at New Deal era laws in cases like Navarro and the Tackett decision in 2015. A bad decision in Sveen might accelerate the rollback of pro-worker laws.

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 Workers Compensation and tagged , , , , , .

Compstitutional Law 101: Part 1: Air ambulance cases call into question federal role in workers’ compensation

Posted on by

Air ambulances are crucial to seriously injured people in rural areas

WILG is hosting A Constitutional Challenges Summit on April 18th in Washington D.C. I won’t be able to travel to the event, but this post and my next post are my contribution to this important disucssion.

Two seemingly obscure court decisions (sorry for the cliché) involving payment of air ambulance bills in workers compensation cases raise big questions about the role of federal law in traditionally state-based workers compensation laws.

Thomas Robinson, editor of the leading treatise on workers’ compensation laws, summarized Texas state court and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decisions  invalidating Texas and Wyoming laws that held that air ambulance bills for workers hurt on the job should be paid under workers’ compensation fee schedules. Both courts held that since air taxis are regulated by the Federal Aviation Act, that federal law would preempt state workers’ compensation acts.

Many lawyers who specialize in workers’ compensation are skeptical of federal intervention in workers compensation. In the world of workers’ compensation so-called “federalization” is often viewed negatively. Robinson worried that the “wall” against federal intervention in the workers’ compensation system was not strong enough and wondered if there were any barriers to federal intervention in state-based workers’ compensation laws.

Anybody who reads this blog on a regular basis knows that I am a skeptic of those are who skeptical of federal intervention in the workers’ compensation system. My fundamental gripe with the “state’s rights” crowd is that workers compensation laws were enacted in the 1910s when a very pro-business Supreme Court used a narrow definition of interstate commerce to limit the power of the federal government to regulate the workplace. Workers’ compensation laws had to be enacted under state law through their 10th Amendment police powers.  But the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce was expanded by the Supreme Court in the New Deal era which allowed the federal government to mandate matters such as wages and workplace safety.

So when Robinson asked if there were any barriers to federal intervention in state workers’ compensation laws, my first reaction was to say no. But the more I looked at the issue, the more I question that reaction.

Robinson described the wall against federal intervention in state workers’ compensation laws as the McCarran-Ferguson Act.  McCarran-Ferguson, passed in 1945, gives the states to regulate “the business of insurance” “without interference with from federal law unless federal law specifically provides otherwise. Since workers’ compensation is at heart an insurance scheme, McCarran-Ferguson provides a barrier against federalization of workers’ compensation.

McCarran-Ferguson was enacted primarily in response to Untied States v. South-Eastern Underwriters a 1944 decision which held that insurance contracts were interstate commerce. Southeastern Underwriters overturned roughly 80 years of precedent that insurance contracts were not interstate commerce because insurance contracts, even if involving interstate parties, were not actually commerce.

The issue of what constitutes commerce figured prominently in NFIB v. Sebelius, the 2012 case upholding the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. In that case, the individual mandate was upheld as constitutional based on the federal power to tax rather than the power to regulate interstate commerce. Much of the same reasoning found in the dissenting opinion in Southeastern Underwriters about what constitutes commerce was found in Chief Justice Roberts’ analysis of the commerce clause in NFIB v. Sebelius. According to Roberts, requiring a person to buy health insurance or any product did not constitute commerce, so Congress cannot enact such a requirement under its power to regulate interstate commerce.  Justice Roberts expressly rejected a cost-shifting argument made in support of the individual mandate being constitutional under the commerce clause.  Supporters of federal minimum standards for state workers’ compensation laws, like me, argue that deficient state laws shift the costs of work injures onto the taxpayers and/or the worker themselves

But under the reasoning in NFIB v. Sebelius, a cost-shifting argument in favor federal standards in workers compensation could run into tough questioning from the Roberts court if power to enact those standards is based on the commerce clause. In view of NFIB v. Sebelius, I believe the air ambulance cases are narrow exceptions to the federal deference to state law in matters of workers compensation.

But I believe state laws regarding workers compensation are subject to indirect federalization through constitutionally-favored tax legislation. In the recently passed tax bill, workers were given incentives to declare themselves independent contractors. As evidenced by NFIB v. Sebelius, the Roberts court seems more inclined to find laws constitutional under taxing authority than the interstate commerce clause. 

Gig economy companies and their lobbyists are pushing for legislation like the NEW GIG Ac t (10) which allows companies to use the tax code to classify workers as contractors without running into legal trouble. For the foreseeable future, I believe the so-called federalization of workers’ compensation will take place in fights about tax law.  The sad fact for employee advocates is that laws enacted under the taxing authority of the federal government are likely to be upheld as constitutional. Unfortunately, any worker-friendly reforms made at a federal level would face a skeptical audience with the Roberts court if they were enacted through the interstate commerce clause.

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, preemption, Workers Compensation and tagged , .

Protecting Yourself At Work: What To Do If There Is An Active Shooter

Posted on by

Today’s post comes from guest author Catherine Stanton, from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.

As an attorney who has been practicing before the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board representing injured workers for more than 27 years, I am drawn to organizations that assist workers. That’s why I am a member of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety & Health (NYCOSH), whose mission notes that every worker has the human right to a safe and healthy workplace and that workplaces injuries are often preventable. As a member, I receive many emails with various announcements regarding workplace safety, as well as statistics of injuries and deaths that occur on the job, many of which are preventable.

It is a sign of the times that on May 23, 2017, I received an email about educating workers on how to best respond in case of an active shooter. NYCOSH, along with the New York City Central Labor Council (NYCCLC), was sponsoring the event that was meant to educate participants on what actions to take to prevent and prepare for potential incidents, including what to do when an active shooter enters the workplace. Many of the cases that make front page news are mass shootings or those in the name of terrorism. Few of us can forget the Islamic extremist, who along with his wife fatally shot 14 of his co-workers at a Christmas party. Many of us go about our workday never anticipating a disgruntled employee, a client harboring a grudge, a terrorist, or a coworker intent on robbery, who may come to our workplaces with murder on their minds. When NYCOSH set out to sponsor their recent event trying to deal with a growing problem in this country, there was no way of knowing that workplace shootings would be in the national headlines three times in just two weeks. 

Last week we were shocked and appalled by the images of Republican Senators and their colleagues being shot at by a deranged person not happy with current politics. While many of our elected officials have heavy security when they are at work in the Capital’s office buildings, these members were on a ballfield early in the morning practicing for a charity baseball game taking place the next day. Despite the close proximity of the Capitol Police there to protect Steve Scalise, the current United States House of Representatives Majority Whip, five people were shot. Thankfully the sole fatality was the shooter himself.

In Orlando in early June, a disgruntled ex-employee systematically shot and killed five coworkers and then himself. A week later, a UPS employee in San Francisco walked into a UPS facility and killed three coworkers before killing himself.

According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, in 2015 there were 354 homicides by shooting at the workplace. There were 307 in 2014, 322 in 2013, 381 in 2012, and 365 in 2011. Based on these statistics, it is clear that this is not an issue going away anytime soon. These are scary times and we all need to prepare for this new normal. 

While I was not able to attend the NYCOSH event, I did go to the website for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which offered these suggestions for responding when an active shooter is in your area.

  • Evacuate if you can.
  • Run as fast as you can and leave everything behind.
  • Just get out if possible.
  • If there is no accessible escape route, then hide somewhere and lock and blockade the door and silence any noise such as a radio or cell phone.
  • Lastly, if your life is in imminent danger, take action and try to incapacitate the shooter.
  • Throw things.
  • Use anything as a weapon.
  • Don’t go down without a fight.

It’s unfortunate that we even have to talk about protecting ourselves from active shooters. But in today’s day and age, we can never be too careful. As a mother, I worry for the safety of my children when they walk out the door as I’m sure many of you do as well. As a lawyer, I worry about the safety of workers every day on the job who are continually dealing with workplace injuries that could have been prevented.

 

Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717.

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 Workers' Compensation, Workplace Injury, Workplace Safety and tagged , , , , .

Improper Body Mechanics While Lifting Far From Only Cause Of Nursing Injuries

Posted on by

A commenter on our firm’s Facebook page stated the use of proper body mechanics will prevent nurses from getting injured. There is some truth to that statement, but there are many ways, probably not limited to this list, that nurses can get injured that aren’t related to lifting at all. Here a few I’ve encountered recently:

  1. Inadequate staffing – There is a strong correlation between staffing levels and nursing injuries. Nurses, especially CNAs, may be forced to lift or move patients on their own because of inadequate staffing or lack of equipment. Nurses may also be forced to prevent patients from suddenly falling. Use of proper lifting techniques may not be possible in such situations.
  2. Patient attacks – Studies show patient attacks on nurses are on upswing. I see a lot of this in nurses that work in mental or behavioral health.  Even they aren’t nurses, many direct care workers and human services technicians who work in mental and behavioral health are vulnerable to patient or client attack. It’s hard to argue a patient attack is the fault of the nurse
  3. Slips and falls – Slip and falls are a common type of work injury. I represented a nurse working at a dialysis clinic who injured their back when they slipped in pool of urine.
  4. Environmental and chemical exposures – In rural areas, many nursing or medical facilities are in older buildings that are vulnerable to mold and other environmental exposure. If you work in a sick building, it’s hard to argue that’s your fault.

Even if you use proper technique, repetitive heavy lifting can still cause strain and can be disabling in some instances. Nursing personnel are particularly vulnerable to these types of injuries.

I want to make one thing crystal clear: whether a nurse or any other employee is injured because of improper lifting technique THOSE INJURIES ARE STILL COVERED BY WORKERS COMPENSATION! (most of the time) In exchange for no-fault compensation, employees give up the right to sue their employer for negligence. While this might not seem like a grand bargain to a worker who was hurt to no fault of their own, that compromise is the cornerstone of workers compensation.

While the idea of no-fault compensation for work injuries is a winner in a court of law, the idea is more controversial in the court of public opinion as expressed on social media. There is an idea out there that filing a workers’ compensation claim is “milking the system” and that you certainly shouldn’t file a claim if you are at-fault for the injury. Statements that nursing injuries can be avoided, if nurses just use proper lifting techniques is consistent with that line of thinking.

A lot of hostility to those who bring work injury claims and their attorneys stems from concepts like “personal responsibility.” But when a nurse is hurt on the job because of understaffing, slipping on urine on the floor or a toxic building, the employee isn’t fully able to hold their employer responsible for the full extent of their harms even if the employer is fully responsible for the harm.

There is also the assumption that workers compensation claims are fraudulent. But would it be fair to assume that all nursing homes defraud Medicare and Medicaid just because one chain of homes in Florida defrauded the government $1 billion? No, it wouldn’t and the same is true for workers’ compensation claims. Ultimately entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits is determined in court where employees are subject to medical examination from doctors picked by insurance companies. Injured workers are also subject to written and oral questioning from insurance company lawyers. Employees usually have formidable barriers to win compensation in a disputed workers’ compensation case, so the idea that fraudulent claims run rampant is absurd.

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 Workers' Compensation, Workplace Injury and tagged , , , , , , .