Category Archives: employment law

Workers’ Compensation:  The Man-made Quagmire (Part 2 of 3)

Posted on by

Today’s post comes from guest author Paul J. McAndrew, Jr., from Paul McAndrew Law Firm. Paul has done a good job of describing the difficulties by injured workers.

This is the second part of a three-part series in which I explain why workers should claim their rights under workers’ compensation laws. The first installment explains how employers commonly and purposefully make it difficult for workers to claim comp. This second part explains ways in which workers’ compensation insurance companies (from here on our we’ll call them “insurers”) also throw up barriers to workers getting comp benefits.

It is worth noting that many employers – mostly large corporate employers – file for and obtain a certificate from the Iowa Division of Insurance to “self-insure” for purposes of workers’ compensation. These self-insured employers have offices filled with staff that carry out the same work and serve the same purposes as out-dwelling work comp insurers. They do the same things as out-dwelling insurers to bar coverage, also.  Thus, I will treat them as one entity – “the insurer.”

Our third segment will explain why other benefits and programs don’t come even close to providing what the worker receives in workers’ compensation. It’s unfortunate, but the best thing a worker can do is slog through this quagmire and make good on his or her rights in comp.


Again, researchers determined years ago that many barriers are erected by insurers. The insurers’ barriers don’t stop after the worker applies for comp. In fact, in my experience the insurers deter workers by making obtaining comp benefits so unpleasant and frustrating, that the workers with future injuries will opt to not claim comp, but rather try to make do with other benefits, if possible. The biggest reasons workers give up on their rights in workers’ compensation are due to the insurers’ conscious effort to frustrate, confuse and delay every aspect of the claims process. That, however, is exactly what should not happen in comp. Why do I say that? Because the Iowa Supreme Court has repeatedly said that for decades. According to the Court it’s a basic fact of Iowa worker’s compensation law “that the injured claimant is compensated swiftly, fairly and with the least possible ‘red tape.’” DeShaw v. Energy Mfg. Co., 192 N.W.2d 777, 784 (Iowa 1971)(citing Cross v. Hermanson Bros., 235 Iowa 739, 16 N.W.2d 616, 618 (1944)). Besides being fast in result, the process is supposed to incline in favor of the worker. Again, as stated by the Iowa Supreme Court, “we keep in mind that the primary purpose of chapter 85 [ed. the work comp code chapter] is to benefit the worker and so we interpret this law liberally in favor of the employee. Stone Container Corp. v. Castle, 657 N.W.2d 485, 489 (Iowa 2003).

So what should you do to protect your workers’ compensation rights when the insurer is ignoring them?

Part I: Dealing with the Insurer’s Persuasion Tactics

  1. The Adjuster – The Insurers’ First Fortress in the way of Every WC Claim

    People used to ask why I do not like adjusters. The reason is that very few of them (something less than 5% by my best estimate) have any goal but cutting costs for the insurer, no matter what means are used to do so. In light of that I most commonly file the claim early on so as to deal with the insurers’ lawyers rather than the adjuster. How does the adjuster form a barrier – a tough fort – standing in the way of a legitimate work comp claim?

    1. The Various Types of Obstructive Adjusters
      Adjusters commonly do several things that occur so frequently that I believe that these things are learned and practiced forms of conduct, which are designed to frustrate any injured worker. What things?
      1. The Absent Adjuster – most commonly the adjuster may never answer the phone, instead letting all of your calls go to voice-mail. Then, the adjuster will not return your calls.
      2. The Rude Adjuster – nearly as common is the adjuster who denies a claim without explanation and will be demeaning and condescending in refusing to be willing to explain anything. In a system in which the worker is usually without any way to know things, being put down and denied without explanation is a very effective method of driving the worker out.
      3. The 100% Purposely-Ineffective Adjuster – the adjuster many times will promise action on a benefit and may even set personal deadline to do so. Then, the adjuster fails to get the action and merely extends the time for the deadline, again and again. Again, this is a very effective means to drive a worker from the system because the benefits (both medical and money) are usually promptly needed.
  2. The Adjuster’s Wingman – The “Nurse Case Manager” Commonly the adjuster/insurer will assign a “nurse case manager” (hereinafter “NCM”) to your claim. The NCM is a “confidence person.” She (the NCM is always a female in my experience) will tell the worker and family that she is there to get better and more prompt care. In fact, the NCM almost invariably seeks to interfere with the minimal care that even a company doctor renders. In most cases the NCM will also do anything to persuade that the worker should be returned to work, whether safe or not. The only effective remedy I’ve found for the NCM who acts unreasonably in denying my clients care is to file a complaint with the Iowa Board of Nursing.
  3. Employer’s Choice of Medical – “Paul McAndrew’s best friend” Why is it my best friend? Because if the law allowed Iowa workers the right to choose their own medical care, more than half of the workers who come in and need me would no longer need me. Why say that? Because about 75% of the workers who come to my office do so only because they’ve been delayed, denied, and frustrated in getting timely and proper care, so much by the company doctor (usually in conjunction with the adjuster and NCM) that they can’t get back to work as they must and they come to me to merely get medical care. They don’t even want the benefits much. They want only to get healthy so they can get back to work and earn a living to support their family. How does the adjuster/NCM/company doctor bar proper and timely care? By these means:
    1. The Company “Hack” (General-Practice Doctor)
      There are many company doctors who are well known to the practicing work comp bar as being dedicated to one thing: Maintaining that doctor’s share of the insurers’ referral of injured workers by almost any means. This leads the doctor to be little more than a mouthpiece for the insurer. This takes the form of:
      1. Stating some uncouth reason why the injury did not arise out of and in course of (commonly called “cause” but very different than) work (e. g., the court reporter, Smith).
      2. Minimizing or even ignoring the worker’s injury condition until the worker is discharged to her/his own doctor, or just leaves due to frustration.
      3. Carrying the worker along over months of periodic clinic visits without any real effort to determine a diagnosis and treat that diagnosis.
    2. The Company “Sweetheart” (Specialist Doctor)
      This specialist—-commonly an orthopedic surgeon or neurosurgeon—becomes the insurer’s favorite by always giving a favorable-to-the-insurer opinion. Again, the Sweethearts are well known to lawyers, but not to the worker.

Part II: The Insurers’ Tricks for Wrongfully Manipulating Care

  • Prompt Care/Unreasonable Delay in Providing Care
    This speaks for itself. It’s far and away the most common method of denying care—just delay it long enough and the worker’s life demands will cause the worker to turn elsewhere for care. This is easily overcome with the Alternate Care Procedure, briefly described here.
  • When the Authorized Doctor Recommends Care that the Insurance Company Denies
  • When the Authorized Doctor Refers to another Doctor and the Insurance Company Denies or tries to Refer, instead, to its “Sweetheart”
  • When the Authorized Doctor orders care and, Instead, the Insurance Company tries to “Transfer Care” to a Sweetheart Who Will Likely say what the Insurance Company Wants to Hear
  • When the only Care Offered is not Convenient Care. This is now standardized: if the care offered is more than 50 miles from the worker’s home and the same type of care is offered closer, then the 50+ – care is “inconvenient.” Remember the “convenience” requirement applies only to “care.” Unfortunately, it does not apply to the company’s right to send the worker for a medico-legal, one-time “independent medical examination.”

 


Alternate Care Process

The Iowa Legislature enacted in 1913 the comp’s system’s healthcare provision method. Iowa Code 85.27. 85.27 provides that the employer has the right to make the initial selection of care. In this regard, Iowa is only one of ten out of the fifty states and the United States (under FECA (Federal Employee Comp Act) and the Long Shore Act) that provide the employer with such unfettered power. For years, a worker had to wait months or more than a year to get to the final hearing to challenge the insurance company’s denial of care.

In 1992, however, Commissioner Byron Orton drafted a provision that was accepted by consensus of all interest groups and enacted into law, which create the “alternate care process.” This process allows the worker to obtain prompt relief for the denial of proper care. The process is relatively simple and designed to be carried out by a worker or union representative.

NOTE: While Section 85.27 gives the employer the right to select care, that right is qualified. The care provided must be (1) prompt, (2) reasonably suited to treat the injury and (3) without undue inconvenience to the claimant. Westside Transport v. Cordell, 601 N.W. 2d619, 694 (Iowa 1999). The failure of the employer to provide care meeting any of these three requirements gives the worker the right to bring an alternate-care procedure and have the Division of Workers’ Comp. order proper care be provided.

The Steps for Filing and Prosecuting ON YOUR OWN an Alternate Care Claim

  1. Before filing, the worker must communicate the basis of her/his dissatisfaction with the care (or lack of care) offered by the employer. If you don’t, the filing will be dismissed. Communicate dissatisfaction in writing or the employer will likely deny that there was communication.
  2. File on the form provided by the Commissioner. This form can easily be obtained at http://www.iowaworkforce.org/wc/publications.htm. There is no cost/filing fee. Make sure you send a copy of the form to your employer, also, as explained on the form.
  3. When filling out the form, ensure you state: (A) The specific medical treatment sought; (B) the grounds why what’s offered (if anything) is not proper (for example, “not prompt,” “not convenient,” or “not proper care for the injury condition,” etc.); and (C) that you ask for hearing by telephone.
  4. Alternative medical care proceedings are only prospective in nature. Bills for prior care will need to be adjudicated about a year later in the primary hearing.
  5. The grand majority of alternate care hearings are heard by phone.
  6. Alternate Care Procedures Yield Prompt Results. Why? Because by law the commissioner must both hear the alternate care matter by phone and issue the decision on the matter within ten (10) days of the filing of the alternate care petition.

Please join us next week for Part 3: Why it’s Important to Receive Comp.

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 , , , , .

Workers’ Compensation: The Man-made Quagmire (Part 1 of 3)

Posted on by

Today’s post comes from guest author Paul J. McAndrew, Jr., from Paul McAndrew Law Firm. in Iowa City. I like that he brings up employer incentives for not filing workers’ compensation claims. That was a favorite tactic of the ghoulish Dan Blankenship, whose callousness towards safety lead to deaths of 29 coal miners in West Virginia in 2010.

I’m starting here a three-part series explaining why workers should claim their rights under workers’ compensation laws.  The three parts are, in summary: 

  1. How the employer makes it tough to claim work comp;
  2. How the insurer makes it tough to claim work comp; and
  3. Summary:  Why it’s Important to You and your Family that you Claim Work Comp when You are Hurt on the Job. 

Below is the first installment.

 


Workers’ compensation [“work comp”] is every workers’ right. Yet, researchers years ago determined that many employers and most work comp insurers try their best to persuade workers to not make claims. That “persuasion” takes many forms. It’s important that workers know that this “persuasion” is calculated and how to deal with it. Why? Because workers’ compensation benefits are your right and those benefits are important to you, your family and the overall safety of your workplace.

Part 1: Dealing with the Employer’s Persuasion Tactics 

  1. Suppressing Reporting of Work Injuries: Pizza-Bingo Party!! — Nancy Lessin (the MA AFL-CIO Health & Safety Coordinator) taught me years ago that giving workers some type of prize for so many hours without a reported injury is NOT based on generosity. No, it’s based on cost cutting. It’s also completely contrary to public policy!

    Work comp is required by law. One of work comp’s basic purposes is to make workplaces safer. How? By making employers pay higher work comp premiums in circumstances in which there are high rates of injuries, thus giving the employer financial incentives to implement safety measures to keep injury rates low, leading to lower premium costs. Some sly employer offer such things as pizza parties, small bonuses, gift-drawings and the like knowing full well that doing so puts pressure on the workers to not report work injuries.

    Why? Because the more a worker cares about her/his brothers and sisters, the more likely the worker will — when hurt at work — do the wrong thing.  What’s the wrong thing? It’s preserving your friends’ pizza party or “prize” by putting the accident as “personal,” and putting the costs on health insurance, LTD and lost sick/vacation time. The problem with this is often not discovered until too late. What do I mean “too late?” I mean when the health insurance company investigates and finds the injury was caused by work and thus denies coverage under the standard health insurance exclusion for work injuries. And when the time missed due to the work injury outstrips the amount of sick and vacation you’ve banked for the last 13 years. Even that does not account for what happens years later.

    First, you work injury may be “the gift that keeps on giving.” It may require 2 or even 3 surgeries, leading to even more medical expenses and time off work. Only work comp pays this.  No LTD or health insurance comes close. Bottom line: Don’t be misled by the “gifts” for no reported work injuries. The only entity getting that “gift” is your employer.

  2. Termination—Yes, we all know the employer who makes up an excuse — ANY excuse — and fires the injured worker within days of the injury.  This is illegal under all public policy, Iowa law (Springer v. Weeks) and U.S. law (the Americans with Disabilities Act).
  3. Return to work at a job that is not within even the company doctor’s work restrictions. Remember — not trying a tendered job — any job — sets up the argument that the worker is “insubordinate,” “refusing work” or “no-call/no-show.” One must try any job, whether the job’s tasks are within restrictions or not. One need not, however, continue to do any tasks that cause worsening of the work-injury condition. If asked to do something outside restrictions set by the doctor:
    1. report that the job’s outside your restrictions;
    2. when told to do the job anyway (which will likely happen), perform the job the best you can and hope for the best; and
    3. if the job does what is feared — worsens your injury condition — go to the company workers’ compensation officer and demand a return to the company doctor immediately, before your injury is permanently worsened.

Stay tuned next week for Part 2: Dealing with the Insurance Company’s Persuasion Tactics.

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 , , .

The NEOC Is Slow To Investigate Claims, Here Are Some Alternatives For Employees Dealing With Discrimination On The Job

Posted on by

The Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) is taking at least upwards of 7 ½ months to assign investigators in employment discrimination cases. In practical terms, this means that discrimination charges wait months before they are investigated, and claimants can wait for over a year for those investigations to conclude from the time they file a charge.

So what is going on and why does it matter? What can employees who believe they were discriminated against on the job do to prosecute cases in the meantime?

Delays at the NEOC

Currently the NEOC is experiencing staffing shortages. Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts has instituted a state employee hiring freeze and that freeze appears to have impacted the NEOC. A renewed attention to sexual harassment from the #MeToo movement may also be increasing discrimination claims.

What’s the advantage of filing a charge with the NEOC?

In 13 years of representing employees, I believe the primary benefit to filing a charge with the NEOC is to have investigator build a case file. I may quibble with methods or conclusions of the investigations, but the investigations often uncover solid evidence that can be used in later in litigation.

The NEOC is also somewhat helpful in conciliating or settling charges short of trial. There is nothing wrong a prompt resolution of claim that provides closure, certainty and compensation for a wronged employee.

When employees have to wait at least 7-8 months to even have an investigator assigned, wronged employees have to wait for those benefits and, in my opinion, that delay diminishes those benefits that come from filing a charge with the NEOC.

Alternatives to NEOC: OHHR and the LCHR

Employees who work in Omaha or Lincoln, can file charges with Omaha Human Rights and Relations Commission and Lincoln Commission on Human Rights (I have been an LCHR Commissioner since 2014) OHHR and LCHR investigate charges much faster than the NEOC.

At the February meeting of the LCHR three employment discrimination claims were voted on by the Commission. Those claims were filed roughly 60-90 days before the hearing.  OHHR aims to process charges within 100-120 days of filing.

OHHR and LCHR investigators are as good as NEOC investigators and are effective at settling or conciliating claims. OHHR and LCHR also investigate smaller employees that the NEOC can’t. The OHHR also expressly investigates sexual orientation claims while the NEOC would have to shoehorn such an investigation into a “sex-plus” framework.

Why you might not need to file a discrimination charge at all

Nebraska allows employees to file discrimination and retaliation cases directly in state court under Neb. Rev. Stat. 20-148 if they are filed within 300 days of the last act of discrimination. Employees don’t need to file an administrative charge of discrimination with the NEOC, EEOC or any other agency.

There are lots of fair employment laws that don’t require filing a charge with a government agency to file suit. This includes all wage and hour laws, including the Equal Pay Act. Employees also do not need to file a discrimination charge in order to bring a common law retaliation case. Finally, African-Americans do not need to file a discrimination charge to bring an action under 42 USC 1981.

What to do if your claim is stuck at the NEOC

Nebraska law allows an employee to request a “right to sue” letter at any point during the NEOC process. If you jointly file a charge with the EEOC, you can request a right to sue letter on a federal charge after 180 days from filing.

Watch out in disability discrimination cases

Due to recent court decisions in Nebraska about the definition of disability, it is probably prudent for employees in Nebraska to bring charges of disability discrimination under both state and federal law which often times means filing a charge with NEOC and EEOC. The NEOC usually jointly files discrimination charges under state and federal law.

Conclusion

I don’t like writing “pitchy” posts, but because of the backlog at the NEOC, if you feel you have been discriminated or retaliated against on the job in Nebraska, call an experienced employment attorney before you call the NEOC. Bluntly, you may not have a case and you may be making the NEOCs backlog worse by filing a weak claim. But even if you don’t have a strong discrimination claim you can still get advice about a severance agreement, help on an unemployment claim or find out that maybe you have a workers’ compensation or wage and hour claim.

 

If you do have a strong claim, you may not need to file a charge with the NEOC or file a discrimination charge at all in order to pursue your rights in court.

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 and tagged , , , , , , , , .

The Chinese province of Nebraska?

Posted on by

Xi JinRicketts?

The equivalent of an economic drone strike took place a few blocks northeast of our Omaha office.

Roy Jones was an hourly customer engagement employee at the Marriott Reservation Center in Omaha. As reported in The Wall Street Journal and Quartz,  he liked a tweet by a Tibetan group congratulating Marriott for listing Tibet as a country.  

As a result of liking a the tweet, the Chinese government ordered Marriott to suspend bookings at 300 hotels in China for a week. Mr. Jones was also terminated. Matt Hanson in the Omaha World-Herald reported, Jones was under traiend and over stressed when he liked the offending tweet. Jones had little idea that liking the tweet would be offensive to the Chinese.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping made news recently becoming the Chinese leader since Mao Zedong to rule for life.  Back in 2016, I wrote a post pointing out Jinping’s increasingly authoritarian tendencies and his crackdown on employee-rights lawyers in China.  I never thought the authoritarian Jinping regime would extend its reach into what writer Matt Stoller  sarcastically described on Twitter as the “Chinese province of Nebraska.”

Nebraska’s junior senator, Ben Sasse, has made a pet issues out of the emerging threat of cyber-attacks from foreign powers. I would wonder what he thinks about a foreign power, China, having the power to fire one of his constituents?

Hanson concluded his article by concluding that Jones’ termination wasn’t right. I agree, but employment at-will allows employers broad legal protections when it comes to firing employees. In essence, employers have Jinping-like powers in the workplace. But when a foreign dictatorship has the power to fire an American worker, legislators and judges should re-think employment at-will or think about creating exceptions to that legal doctrine.

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 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 , , , , , , .

Nebraska Fails To Increase 2018 Mileage Reimbursement Rate

Posted on by

Mileage reimbursement for injured workers in Nebraska stays flat in 2018 despite increase in IRS rate

Injured workers travelling to medical appointments and vocational rehabilitation programs in Nebraska will not see an increase in reimbursement for mileage even though the Internal Revenue Service reimbursement rate will rise by $.01 per mile to $.545 per mile starting on January 1, 2018.

In a press release, the Nebraska Workers Compensation court stated the mileage re-imbursement would stay steady at $.535 per mile consistent with the reimbursement rate for Nebraska state employees. The failure to increase mileage rates will particularly impact injured workers in rural areas who need to travel to urban areas to seek treatment or get examined by specialists. The week before Christmas I travelled to the Nebraska Sand Hills region to visit a few clients. I visited a client in Ord, Nebraska who has to see a specialist in Kearney, Nebraska. The failure to raise the mileage re-imbursement rate will cost that client $1.41 per trip.

I visited another client in Loup City, Nebraska who is scheduled for an independent medical examination in Omaha in a few weeks. The failure to raise the mileage rate will cost that client $3.22 for the trip.

Nebraska’s refusal to raise the mileage reimbursement rate for state employees to match the IRS rate is consistent with efforts by the Ricketts administration to reduce state employment costs by a hiring freeze for state employees and end cost of living increases for non-unionized state employees.

The Nebraska Workers Compensation Court also announced the maximum benefit rate will increase from $817 per week to $831 per week. Unlike the mileage rate, the maximum benefit rate is set by statute in Nebraska. In Nebraska we take for granted that the maximum benefit rate will generally increase over time. But that isn’t the case in every state. In 2017 a judge in Alabama ruled that their state’s workers compensation system was unconstitutional because it had not increased the maximum benefit in nearly 30 years.

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, Workplace Injury and tagged , , .

Back In The game Or Back To Work Too Soon?

Posted on by

Senator Dan Quick has introduced employee-friendly legislation

Last weekend’s Big 10 Conference football championship game between Ohio State and Wisconsin contained some off-the-field controversy when former Wisconsin Badger and current Cleveland Browns player, Joe Thomas, criticized the fact that Ohio State starting quarterback J.T. Barrett was playing in the game six days after arthroscopic knee surgery.

While Barrett lead the Buckeyes to victory with 211 passing yards and 60 rushing yards, Thomas argued that college players should have the option of a second opinion when it comes to major surgeries like players do in the NFL. Thomas argued that team doctors are overly influenced by coaches who want players to return to action as soon as possible and that college players are over eager to return to the field.

A similar issue will be debated in Nebraska’s legislature next month. Senator Dan Quick of Grand Island has a bill on the floor that would require an employer to pay for a second opinion if an employee disputes a finding from a doctor paid for by the employer. Quick’s bill was inspired by his experience of being sent back to work prematurely by a doctor chosen by his employer’s workers compensation insurer.

Quick is an electrician by trade and is one of the few blue-collar workers who serves in the Nebraska Legislature. Another blue-collar worker, Lee Carter, was recently elected to the legislature in Virginia. Like Quick, Carter had a bad experience after a work injury. Carter had his hours reduced after his accident and was unable to find a lawyer because of confusion over which state had jurisdiction over his work injury.

Blue collar workers running for office may be a trend as iron worker Randy Bryce is running for Congress against House Speaker Paul Ryan and Wisconsin Firefighter’s union president Mahlon Mitchell is running for Governor of Wisconsin. I am encouraged that people like Dan Quick and Lee Carter have taken their bad experiences after work injuries and have gone into politics to directly address the problems they  faced first hand and make sure other workers will have better experiences if they get hurt on the job.

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 , , , , , , , , .