Author Archives: Jon Rehm

Injured workers served poorly with AMA “cookbook” on causation

Posted on by

DON”T GET ON THE AMA CAUSATION GUIDES SHIP!!!

My friends and colleagues on the WILG listserv were discussing the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation, 2nd edition. The consensus was that the new guidebook treats injured workers, to quote the President, very unfairly.

Lawyers in Illinois and Montana have encountered the AMA Causation Guide. I encountered the causation guide in Nebraska this spring/summer in Tapee v. Nestle (available on NWCC Decision and Order Search by clicking here). My experience was that the trial judge was not impressed by the opinions of an examining expert who relied generalizations from studies rather than looking at the particulars of my client’s injury.

A colleague in Montana seemed to have a similar experience.  Another weakness of the AMA Causation Guides is that doesn’t address the fact that states have different standards for medical causation. For example, even if it’s true that occupational causes aren’t a prevailing factor in causing carpal tunnel syndrome, that doesn’t matter in Nebraska because a worker only needs to show that occupational factors were a contributing factor to the injury.

Even among WILG members, the AMA Guide to Causation is still confused with the better known AMA Guides to Permanent Impairment that have been subject to numerous court challenges. The so-called AMA 6th has long been a target of plaintiff’s lawyers because of how it reduces compensation for many types of permanent injuries. When the AMA 6th came out about 10 years ago, plaintiff’s lawyers were good about educating courts about the problems with the AMA 6th.

Nebraska isn’t bound by the AMA Guides to Impairment, but courts often follow them in determining permanent disability for scheduled member impairment. In 2010, one trial judge criticized the AMA 6th in Endorf v. Chief Industries (click here for NWCC Decisions and Orders Search) But the insurance defense bar was relentless in pushing the AMA 6th and it is often used as a basis to pay permanent impairment in Nebraska despite early misgivings by some workers’ compensation judges.

I suspect the insurance defense bar will be as relentless in pushing the AMA Causation Guides. From discussion on the WILG listserv, it appears as if there is a nationwide push to use the AMA Causation Guides. The AMA Impairment Guides are sometimes referred to as a “cookbook”. (Hence the headline and artwork for this post) But at least in Nebraska where the AMA Guides to Impairment are generally just applied to so-called “scheduled members” that are paid on a loss of use basis, I can see why a judge may rely on those guides. (The distinction between scheduled member disability being paid on a loss of use basis and non-scheduled injuries being paid on a loss of earning power basis in Nebraska seems to be largely a judge-made distinction)

But causation would seem to be a different story. Causation would seem to be an issue that Judge’s would still want to decide on an individualized basis rather than deferring to a book. But prolonged use of the AMA Causation Guides may eventually lead to an informal heightening for medical causation standards by workers’ compensation judges. 

Maybe this is burying the lead, but the more acute danger is that stae legislatures will adopt the AMA Guides to Causation like they did with the AMA Guides to Permanent Impairment.

Plaintiff’s lawyers have some studies they can use to the counter the AMA Guides to Causation. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons have compiled studies about carpal tunnel syndrome that would contradict the studies that form the basis of the AMA Causation Guide. Plaintiff’s lawyers may also want to bone up on rules regarding expert testimony. At least in Nebraska, those rules don’t govern admissibility of medical evidence, in workers’ compensation but they can certainly be helpful to a court in weighing medical evidence.  NWCC Rule 10 narrowly defines who can testify by written report in our workers’ compensation court. In my experience, “non-Rule 10 experts” can make good witnesses for the plaintiff on cross-examination.

Lawyers for injured workers need to see recognize the threat posed by the AMA Guides to Causation and make every available factual and legal argument against its application at every opportunity –whether in a courtroom, a legislative committe hearing, at a legal confernece and/or on social media.

 

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 AMA Guides to Causation, AMA Guides to Impairment, Nebraska, Workers Compensation and tagged , , , .

Accommodation on the job for amputees draws media attention

Posted on by

A federal court in Nebraska recently ruled in a case about accommodating a wheelchair bound amputee on the job.

Two recent cases involving Walmart and accommodating workers with amputations have made the news recently.

The EEOC sued Walmart for allegedly failing to hire a Texas woman with an amputated hand as a stocker. Here in Nebraska, a federal district court denied summary judgment in a failure to accommodate claim involving an amputee who used a wheelchair and requested not to wear a long butcher coat because it got stuck in his wheelchair.

The Texas and Nebraska cases both turn on arguments about the failure of Walmart to engage in an interactive process to accommodate a disability. The Nebraska case also emphasized that this interactive process need not be formal which is a point I have made before.

The longer I practice workers’ compensation and employment law, the more I despise bureaucracy. Reading “The Utopia of Rules” by David Graeber in 2015 crystallized my thinking on the topic. In early 2017, I wrote a post about just cutting management out of the accommodation process altogether if possible. I wrote that such conduct would be protected as a protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. (NLRA)

Well, thanks to Neil Gorsuch’s 5-4 majority opinion in Epic Systems, helping to accommodate the disability of a coworker may not be a protected activity under the NLRA. For now at least, federal courts don’t require that employees have to exhaust administrative remedies within what amounts to a private administrative state in order to accommodate a disability. Courts seem to give more legal power to an individual alleging individualized discrimination rather than employees acting collectively about the terms and conditions of their employment.

In short, employees have some real legal rights on the job so long as they acting as individuals within the frame of anti-discrimination laws. In order to act collectively employees either need to engage in direct action like strikes — which is a whole other topic —  or in the political arena.

 

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

This entry was posted in ADA, amputees, Nebraska, Walmart and tagged , , , , .

A new season for the Shameless economy?

Posted on by

What’s going to happen on the next season of the Shameless economy?

Amazon made big news on Tuesday when it announced it was implementing a $15 minimum wage for all employees. 

Part of the story was why Amazon raised wages. Some pointed to low unemployment  while others pointed to popular criticism of Amazon’s labor practices. That criticism was expemplied by the Stop BEZOS Act targeting Amezon that was introducted in the Senate by Bernie Sanders.

The author of this blog falls into Amazon critics category. Last November I coined the phrase “Shameless” economy, based on the show Shameless, to describe how Amazon misclassifisied delivery dirvers as contractors.

While Amazon may win applause for raising the wages of employees, by classifiying workers as contractors they are excluding those workers from the benefits of emplyoees like unemployment and workers’ compensation. Amazon annouced this summer that it was expanding its own inhouse package delivery services and looking to contract  with “entrreprenuers”. Contractors aren’t covered by unemployment or workers’ compensation which are beneifts that are mandated by the government.  In other words, Amazon is growing its ranks of contractors which reduces its labor costs while receiving good publicity for raising wages for workers they classify as employees. 

If you watch Shameless you know the character Frank Gallagher. Frank is a terrible drunk and overall person. But occassionally Frank will seem to get his stuff in order only to fall back into his usual antics. Amazon’s labor practices are like Frank Gallagher’s behavior, every once in awhile he will get his stuff together and demand all sorts of credit. But sooner or later, as the millenials say on social media, he is back on his bulls***.

Keep an eye on Amazon.

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 Amazon, worker classification, Workers' Compensation and tagged , , , , , .

Why are mental-mental benefits generally limited to first responders?

Posted on by

Convenience store clerks are often exposed to violence. But in order for them to be compensated for work -related mental trauma, they generally need to have a physical injury.

The question of why coverage of so-called “mental-mental” injuries, or work injuries that do not involve a physical injury, is generally limited to first responders is a question that is increasingly vexing attorneys for injured workers and commentators on workers compensation — and workers.

The answer boils down to politics.

From a logical and moral point of view there is no reason why a convenience store clerk and a police officer shouldn’t be able to collect workers’ compensation for purely mental injuries from exposure to violent crime. 

Legally that moral and logical sentiment is often expressed as an argument that such distinctions violate equal protection under state and federal constitutions. Advocates for injured workers have had some success in striking down so-called workers compensation reforms on equal protection grounds.

But while equal protection arguments can be useful in restoring rights to workers compensation, they are less helpful in creating new rights such as compensation for mental injuries. When addressing whether a law is constitutional, appellate courts usually decide first on what level of scrutiny to apply. The less stringent the scrutiny, the more likely the court will find the law to be constitutional.

Health and safety laws like workers compensation are generally afforded rational basis scrutiny by appellate courts. That means courts will generally uphold the constitutionality of those laws. That deferential level of scrutiny emerged out of the New Deal era as a way to uphold the constitutionality of laws relating to social welfare. But in the modern era rational basis scrutiny is often used to argue that the protections of laws like workers compensation shouldn’t be expanded by courts in a way not intended by a legislature.

In Nebraska it was the legislature that created compensation for mental-mental injuries for first responders and expanded that protection to prison guards and Department of Health and Human Services employees in contact with high risk indviduals. So ultimately providing protection for purely mental injuries to all workers — not just first responders — will be a political issue.

 

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, PTSD, 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 , , , .