Author Archives: Jon Rehm

Caught in the TTD/PPD squeeze

Posted on by

Consider these common scenarios after a serious work injury.

An injured employee is done recovering from a surgery but can’t go back to work until they complete a Functional Capacity Evaluation.

An injured employee is done recovering from a spinal fusion surgery and is unable to go back to their old job. Even if on the odd chance they could go back to their old job, they have been off work so long that any job protections available under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have long passed.

In both cases an injured worker is likely 1) not getting temporary total disability (TTD) 2) Is not earning wages and 3) Has not started receiving any permanent partial disability (PPD) or permanent total disability (PTD).

Some call it “the gap”, some call it “the squeeze”, but whatever you call it, it’s a painful situation to be in to not have any money coming in after a recovery from an injury.

Workers’ compensation laws in Nebraska are supposed to be interpreted in favor of the employee to effectuate the beneficent purpose of relieving employees of the economic effects of a work injury. How can employers/insurers squeeze injured employees like this?

One answer is that case law may allow this. I am going to cut and paste in the relevant language case law into this blog post in italics. I am going to bold face the language insurers rely on to squeeze injured employees.

Temporary disability ordinarily continues until the claimant is restored so far as the permanent character of his or her injuries will permit. Compensation for temporary disability ceases as soon as the extent of the claimant’s permanent disability is ascertained. In other words, temporary disability should be paid only to the time when it becomes apparent that the employee will get no better or no worse because of the injury.

The term “maximum medical improvement,” or MMI, has been used to describe the point of transition from temporary to permanent disability.  Once a worker has reached MMI from a disabling injury and the worker’s permanent disability and concomitant decreased earning capacity have been determined, an award of permanent disability is appropriate.

The argument underlying the squeeze is that TTD ends when a doctor states you have plateaued medically, but you can’t get permanent disability until your disability has been ascertained. This could mean waiting for a permanent impairment rating or it could mean waiting for an FCE, having a doctor endorse the results and then having a vocational counselor determine disability. As Roger Moore at our office pointed out in 2015, the latter process can last months.

I think allowing insurers to exploit the gap between TTD and PPD is an incorrect reading of the law. As I pointed out earlier, it doesn’t effectuate the beneficent purpose of the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act. If TTD ends when disability is ascertained, doesn’t disability actually need to be ascertained through assigning either permanent impairment or permanent restrictions and/or a determination of loss of earning power before TTD payments end? Finally, if MMI signals the transition between temporary and permanent disability benefits, isn’t MMI merely the beginning of the end of temporary benefits rather than the end of temporary benefits? Doesn’t the term “transition” account for some time period when disability is being ascertained?

The temporary/permanent squeeze is an issue of great interest to me. While I think the squeeze is a misreading of the law, I am not certain a trial judge or appellate court would see things my way. The issue may have to be resolved in the Legislature, but the issue is one that should be addressed in litigation. I am one attorney who is willing to litigate the issue on behalf of an injured employee.

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

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

Three ways to make sense of Masterpiece Cakeshop

Posted on by

The Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop was not as harmful to LGBT rights or civil rights laws in general as feared.  In fact, Masterpiece was cited by the Arizona Court of Appeals in upholding a Phoenix municipal ordinance prohibiting LGBT discrimination in public accommodation.

But court watchers were left scratching their collective heads by the mixed signals sent by the court. Given a week to digest the decision and read over the commentary, I think Masterpiece is understandable in the broader context of other decisions made by the Roberts court. I think three trends explain Masterpiece: 1) The Court’s favor of protected status over protected activity) 2 skepticism of the “administrative state” and 3) the use of federal supremacy by the court to rein in progressive-leaning states and cities.

Protected Status > Protected Activity

Sexual orientation and gender identity are considered a type of protected class. Sometimes theses these statuses are protected expressly, like they are in state and municipal laws, or they are covered by sex as held by many federal courts. Civil rights laws protect everyone based on various protected statuses such as race, nationality, religion, sex, disability and age. Everybody is covered by multiple protected classes. Protected class discrimination is fairly non-controversial because most people agree that someone should not be discriminated against based on immutable traits like race or sex. Sexual orientation and gender identity are just additional protected classes that would apply some people.

This isn’t to say that LGBT rights are universally accepted. The fact there are so many litigated cases, like Masterpiece, based on direct evidence of discrimination should be proof of that statement. But even in conservative-leaning states like Nebraska, business interests have pushed to expand anti-discrimination laws to LGBT individuals in an effort to have cities and states be seen as “open for business”. That’s part of the reason that Omaha, like Phoenix, has a municipal ordinance prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.   The Materpiece decision could be very persusasive to a Nebraska court hearing a challenge to Omaha’s laws prohibting discrimination agains the LGBT community.

Business looks less favorably upon protected activities than protected statuses. These are activities that individuals cannot be sanctioned for or retaliated against for engaging. From a business point of view the most problematic problematic activity is engaging in unionization or striking. Striking has re-emerged as a popular tactic for workers in the wake of teachers strikes and a possible strike by UPS drivers. The Supreme Court generally takes a business-friendly view on protected activity. In Epic, the court took a narrow view of what constituted protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. Earlier this term, in Somers v. DRT,  the court narrowed the definition of a whistleblower under Dodd-Frank. The split between how the court treats protected activities and protected statuses became apparent to me in 2013 when the court decided the landmark LGBT civil rights case Windsor in the same term they decided Nassar which raised the burden of proof for employees in Title VII retaliation cases. The same split between protected activity and protected activity is apparent in 2018 with Epic and Somers contrasted with Masterpiece.

Dislike of the Administrative State

The reason why Jack Phillips “won” Masterpiece was because of negative comments about religion made by a lone commissioner on the Colorado Commission on Human Rights. Phillips was being civilly charged by state administrative agency. The  Roberts court, Justices Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito in particular, are skeptical of the role of  administrative agencies on separation of powers grounds. That skepticism was evidenced by Justice Gorsuch’s comments about the National Labor Relations Board in Epic. ThIS terrm the court also heard what could be a close case about whether the Securities and Exchange Commission can use Administrative Law Judges to punish misconduct in the securities industry that could have broad — if not disruptive — implcations. If nothing else, Masterpiece is a bench slap to an administrative agency.

I also believe that Masterpiece could have a chilling effect on state and local human rights commissions.  I have served on the Lincoln Commission on Human Rights since 2014.  Even before Masterpiece was decided, commissioners were given a memo describing the concerns expressed by Justice Kennedy in oral arguments in Masterpiece about the comments made by the Colorado Civil Rights Commissioner. Civil rights commissioners often engage in spirted discussions about what constitutes unlawful discrimination in a particular case. It would be unfortunate if Masterpiece lead commissioners to self-censor over fears that those comments could be used by the parties they believe could be engaged in unlawful discrimination.

Federal supremacy over states and cities

Jack Phillips succeeded in making a first amendment argument that the Colorado Commission on Civil Rights violated his freedom of religion by making impermissible comments about his religion. Phillips resorted to federal law to strike down a decision made by the state agency of a progressive-leaning state. Much of the arbitration case law that supported the Epic decision was based on the Federal supremacy of  the Federal Arbitration Act over state laws that  prohibited arbitration. Many of these state laws were passed by “blue” states such as California. By overruling a decision made by the Colorado Commssion on Civil Rights, the Roberts court was able to assert some measure of federal supremacy over a progressive-leaning state.

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 civil rights, public accommodation, Supreme Court and tagged , , , , , .

Denied workers’ compensation and health insurance for a work injury? You might have a counter

Posted on by

Ohio State lines up to run a QB counter against Nebraska

My colleagues Paul McAndrew from Iowa and Bernard Nomberg from Alabama have blogged about the tragic but common situation of an employee who puts a work injury on private health insurance only to have health insurance deny payment because they discover the injury is work-related.

It is another example of injured workers getting squeezed. But in the right circumstances an injured worker can squeeze back— a counter-squeeze if you will.

In Nebraska health insurance benefits are considered wages. Nebraska allows employees to receive attorney fees when they sue for unpaid wages under what is called the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act.  So an employer who is denying medical benefits under workers’ compensation, should not be able to deny payment of those bills under private health insurance.

Nebraska also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for claiming workers’ compensation benefits. Retaliation is an adverse action related to the terms and conditions of employment. Denying payment of wages, in the form of health insurance, because the employee has filed a workers’ compensation claim should be retaliation.

So employers denying workers’ compensation and health insurance benefits can find themselves facing a wage and hour and retaliation case.  Of course, these types of cases are a lot more complicated than described in the last two paragraphs.

In order for the counter-squeeze to work, it is best to have an employer who is at a minimum self-insured for the purposes of health insurance and ideally self-insured for health insurance and workers’ compensation. Tyson, Crete Carrier and Werner Enterprises are large Nebraska employers who fit into the latter category. Self-insurance is important because it allows the employee to link the decision to deny benefits to the employer. In theory you can still make a counter-squeeze work when outside insurance companies are involved, but that turns the case into a civil conspiracy case that can be more costly and difficult to prove.

Wage and hour cases also require detailed proof of medical bills and existence of a valid contract for payment of benefits. If an employee appears to have misrepresented how an injury happened, an employer may be able to fire an employee regardless of any retaliatory motive on their part. But the employee who at first blush may have “screwed up their case” by paying for their workers’ compensation injury with their private health insurance, may be able to salvage a good outcome in their work injury 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 Nebraska, retaliation, Wage and Hour, Workers Compensation and tagged , , , .

A truly Epic failure for workers

Posted on by

He just turned 50 last year…

Free speech in the workplace has been discussed heatedly in the wake of the cancellation of “Roseanne”and a new rule prohibiting NFL players from kneeling during the national anthem. Parties on both sides in the culutrue war have argued that employees don’t have freedom of the speech on the job. While that is generally true, the National Labor Relations Act gives employees some rights of speech and associationon the job. But a recent Supreme Court case could have paired back those rights.

In Epic Systems v. Lewis the United States Supreme court held in a 5-4 decision that neither the National Labor Relations Act  nor the savings clause of the Federal Arbitration Act  prevents enforcement of arbitration clauses that preclude class or collective actions against employers by their employees.

As many commentators and the dissent pointed out, the Epic decision will make it more difficult for workers to band together to address wage and hour violations. Individually, even with attorney fees available, it is not economical for employees to pursue individual cases of wage theft if those individual cases amount to a relatively small amount. An example of such a case were the so-called “donning and doffing” cases pursued against various meat packing plants in the Midwest.

Employers have won some major victories in the area of wage and hour law this Supreme Court term. Epic follows on the heels of a decision making it easier for employers to prove they are exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act

But Epic could impact labor and employment law beyond just wage and hour law. Here are a few ways Epic could impact more than just wage and hour law. This list is not inclusive and Epic is probably worth more discussion, but I wanted to discuss the broader implications of this case and bring up lesser discussed but important implications of this case.

What is a protected concerted activity?

The National Labor Relations Act protects protected concerted activity for the mutual aid of co-workers that goes to the terms and conditions of employment. The employees argued that participating in a collective action case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the five Justice majority, disagreed. Gorsuch wrote that the NLRA only covered activities that employees do for themselves, not class action litigation. What concerned me more, was Gorsuch’s  use of a “canon”of statutory construction to hold that seemingly broad language in the NLRA about it employees being able to engage in collective activity for “mutual aid and protection” only applied to forming labor unions and other activities related to formal collective bargaining.

This conclusion concerned me because I have long advocated for non-unionized employees to engage in collective self-help on the job to address issues like bullying  or even accommodation of a disability.  But, as the dissent points out, association rights on the job are also protected by the Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLGA) NLGA expressly provides for a right to self-organization among employees. Though the Epic court rejected NLGA as a basis for overcoming an arbitration clause, it’s broader language could still be the basis for workplace speech and assocation rights than a paired down NLRA.

That Norris-LaGuardia would serve as backstop for employee association rights would assume the Roberts/Gorsuch court is merely following some rules of statutory construction rather than imposing their own economic preferences into the law. That might not be a fair assumption. The Federal Arbitration Act explicitly excludes employment contracts from coverage. In 2001, the Supreme Court limited that exclusion from workers in the transportation industry.  Epic would appear to further limit that exclusion in contradiction to plain and clear statutory language to the contrary.

 

Can Epic be made to benefit workers?

Epic may benefit some employees. One impetus behind using arbitration clauses to prevent class action claims is to defeat class action claims on retirement plans under ERISA. However ERISA also governs short-term and long- term disability policies. Currently, short-term and  long-term disability policies very difficult to win because courts defer to insurers on how the plans are interpreted. Some employee-benefit attorneys believe that employees will have a better chance of disability claims in arbitration.  Union-side labor lawyer, Moshe Marvit has also speculated that Epic might make it easier for employees to form unions.

Many management-side attorneys are also skeptical of arbitration  which could also prevent employers from adopting arbitration clauses.

Constitutional perspectives

So how is it that the Supreme Court can ignore seemingly plain language about the Federal Arbitration Act not applying to employment disputes? The Circuit City decision from 2001, provides one clue. In Circuit City the Supreme Court used a narrow interpretation of interstate commerce to hold that the FAA only applies to transportation employees. This holding is consistent with other holdings from the Rehnquist and Roberts courts that limit that power of the federal government to regulate through the commerce clause. (12)

Though Epic doesn’t discuss state police powers under the 10th Amendment much of the case law relied upon in Epic has to do with how the FAA pre-empts state laws preventing arbitration in certain cases. Essentially the so-called “contracts clause” which prevents laws that impair the obligation of contract.  This includes state laws enacted under 10th Amendment police powers. The Supreme Court took up a contracts clause case, Sveen v. Melin, this term.  That case could also have implications in the world of employment law depending on the language of the decision and any possible concurring opinions from the likes of Justices Gorsuch, Alito or Thomas.

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

This entry was posted in Arbitration, NLGA, NLRA, Supreme Court, Wage and Hour and tagged , , , , .

Temporary Help Employees Can Sue Their Employers?!

Posted on by

Today’s post comes from guest author Charlie Domer, from The Domer Law Firm in Wisconsin. Our firm has had success in getting around the so-called exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation which allows workers to sue their employers directly. We have been able to bring claims for injured farm workers as well as for the surviving parents of non-dependent children killed on the job. The Wisconsin legislature quickly closed the loophole that allowed temporary employees to sue employers directly. In short, that’s why elections matter. Nebraska and Wisconsin both have state elections this fall and our firms encourage workers in those states, and all states, the vote for candidates who support workers’ rights.

Temporary Help Employees Can Sue Their Employers? …. Well, maybe not.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals considered the following issue: can a temporary help employee who was injured at work elect not to pursue a worker’s compensation claim and, instead, actually sue their employer in civil court?  The Court said the answer is “YES.”  

Wait….what?!  That is not how the worker’s compensation system was supposed to work.  Cue panic mode for employers who used temporary help employees.  (or at least until the legislature “fixed” this).

The necessary background (and backbone) of the worker’s compensation system is the 100+ year old “grand bargain” between employers and employees.  Employers agreed to provide smaller, defined benefits regardless of fault for the work injury, while employees gave up the right to tort damages (like pain and suffering) in exchange for those benefits.   Thus, worker’s compensation became the worker’s exclusive remedy against the employer.  A worker cannot sue their employer (or co-worker) for a work injury.

That exclusive remedy also extends to temporary help agency situations.  Under the traditional interpretation of the worker’s compensation act, a temporary help employee is barred from any tort lawsuit against their employing temporary help agency and against the employer where they were placed/working.   This was the interpretation…or so we thought.

In Estate of Carlos Esterley Cerrato Rivera v. West Bend Mutual Ins Co., the Court of Appeals allowed a temporary help employee’s tort lawsuit to proceed against the placed employer.  The case arose from tragic and slightly convoluted facts.  Three temporary help employees all died in a motor vehicle accident.  All three were driving in the same car and performing services for Alpine Insulation (insured by West Bend Mutual).  Mr. Rivera was a temporary help employee of Alex Drywall, who sent him to work for Alpine Insulation.  Alpine, in turn, paid Alex Drywall for the services.  The driver, whose negligence resulted in the accident, was also a temporary help employee, but of another employer.

Mr. Rivera’s estate did not pursue a claim for worker’s compensation death benefits.  The estate instead sued the placed employer, Alpine Insulation, in circuit court for tort damages.   Alpine and West Bend Mutual argued that the work comp exclusive remedy protects them from these types of lawsuits.

[Note: the facts are unclear about whether there was an “election” not to pursue a work comp claim.  There could have been difficulties by the work comp carrier in determining if there were any eligible surviving dependents.  There also could have been issues involving establishing the employment relationship with Alex Drywall.  This is mere speculation, but it is interesting to think about how the case genesis]

The Court of Appeals interpreted the relevant statutes to allow the tort suit to proceed!  Specifically, Section 102.29(6)(b)1. says that “no employee of a temporary help agency who makes a claim for compensation may make a claim … in tort against … any employer that compensates the temporary help agency for the employee’s services.”   The Court ruled that because Rivera’s estate had never pursued a worker’s compensation claim, the statute actually allowed the tort suit.

Based on the immediate outrage and backlash in the employer community (and specifically the massive amount of employers who use temporary help employees), the Wisconsin legislature moved swiftly to “fix” this perceived loophole in the law.   The legislature passed 2017 Wisconsin Act 139 (effective March 1, 2018). The Act amended the governing statutes in Section 102.29 to now state that “no employee of a temporary help agency who has the right to make a claim for compensation may make a claim … in tort against … any employer that compensates the temporary help agency for the employee’s services.”  

Accordingly, for a fleeting moment, it appeared injured temporary help employees could elect to forego a work comp claim and maintain a civil lawsuit against their placed employers for pain and suffering.   The legislature effectively restored and reiterated the exclusive remedy provision in temporary help agency situations.  If a temporary help employee is injured on the job, worker’s compensation remains their only recourse against the temporary help employer and their placed employer.

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 Grand Bargain, Temporary Help, Work Comp Legislation and tagged , , , .

Non-combat veterans could be at risk for traumatic brain injuries

Posted on by

The link between traumatic brain injury (TBI) and blasts from improvised explosive devices (IED) in veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been well-documented.  However new research has has shown that even veterans and active service members who have not faced combat may be at increased risk for TBI.

A study by the Center for New American Security showed increased risks of TBI for soldiers who trained using heavy weapons including shoulder mounted anti-tank weapons. The study recommended improved developing new helmets to improve protections against blasts.

TBI can impact hearing as well as speech, mental processing and mood. Our firm does not handle veteran’s benefits claims, but we recommend veterans who trained with heavy weapons to contact such a firm. Our firm would be happy to recommend firms to any veterans who suspect they have a TBI or any other service connected disability.

But TBI is not solely a military issue. Workers in construction and manufacturing can also be exposed to noise and other factors causing TBI. I would hope that improvements in safety equipment protecting soldiers from TBI could be adapted for civilian 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 Memorial Day, Traumatic Brain Injury, Veterans, Workplace Safety and tagged , .

Don’t Go It Alone

Posted on by

It’s fitting that today’s guest post about the difficulties of representing yourself in a workers compensation case come from New York City lawyer Richard Cahill Jr., from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.

Last month I had the privilege of travelling to New York City. I’ve never used the New York City subway or commuter rails before. I had some challenges navigating those systems typical to someone from Nebraska that a New York city resident would either find funny– or annoying if I was holding up a turnstile. Point being, being an injured worker is kind of like using the New York subway for the first time. It’s confusing and hard to find good information. But the consequences for inexperience or a lot different. Because of my inexperience with the New York City subway, I overpaid for an MTA card and wasted 15 minutes because I took the wrong line to my hotel.

An inexperienced self-represented claimant in a workers compensation case themselves thousands of dollars and miss out on needed medical care. The takeaway here is that our firm, along with most other reputable firms representing injured workers, will give you a free consultation about your case and whether you need a lawyer or not.

An injured worker walked through my door the other day frustrated beyond belief. He had been representing himself on his compensation claim for his back injury. He thought he did not need a lawyer and could handle it himself.

The insurance company accepted the claim and paid this worker only a fraction of what he was actually entitled to, though that was not the issue the client wanted to discuss. He did not even realize that he had been short changed.

What he wanted to discuss was getting back surgery. His doctor requested a laminectomy, but the insurance company told the doctor and the injured worker that they were not going to authorize it or pay for it. This man had been suffering terrible back pain for nearly six months and his surgery was never scheduled.

The injured worker was shocked when I told him that the insurance company did not have to give authorization — this surgery was already authorized under the Board’s Medical Treatment Guidelines. The insurance company knew this of course, but seemingly played ignorant to avoid paying for the needed surgery.

When I then told him that he could not only have his surgery, but also had been paid less than half of the indemnity payments to which he was entitled, the gentleman shook his head in frustration and said, “I shouldn’t have done this alone.”

How right he was. The New York Workers Compensation system is extremely complicated. Insurance companies know the system well and often do not tell unrepresented injured workers details that matter, often while telling the injured worker that they are acting in their best interest.

Do not go it alone.  At Pasternack, Tilker, Ziegler, Walsh, Stanton, and Romano, with more than eight decades of experience in defending the rights of New Yorkers, we help clients get the justice they deserve.

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 , , .