Category Archives: Workers Compensation

Guest Post:It’s time to overcome the negative stigma of workers’ compensation

Posted on by

This is a guest post from our colleague Mack Babcock from Denver. We like the post because it directly the addresses the issue of the stigma of workers’ compensation. We have addressed that stigma indirectly in two recent posts (here and here), but we haven’t addressed the issue directly.

Both workers’ compensation claimants and attorneys know what a complicated, stressful mess a workers’ compensation claim can be

In the event of a workplace accident, workers’ compensation is intended to cover an injured worker’s medical expenses, lost wages, and any permanent disability. Even when filing a workers’ compensation claim is well within an injured party’s rights, they often face a difficulty they might not have expected: stigma.

A 2014 survey by Summit Pharmacy, Inc. found that more than a third (37%) of Americans believe individuals who claim workers’ compensation are using it as an excuse to get out of work.

Clearly, there’s a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding out there about what workers’ compensation is and when it applies. Even though workers’ compensation is a type of insurance — no different than car insurance or medical insurance — some people regard it as a welfare program for those who don’t want to work.

Stress and anxiety are already common among those injured at work, and the last thing they need is to worry more about how others might perceive them. It’s important for both employers and employees to understand that the primary goal of the workers’ compensation system is to provide basic protection to the injured worker, allowing them to recover faster and become a productive member of society once again.

In most cases, denying a claim simply shifts the burden of recovery to the injured worker, and prolongs the amount of time it takes for that person to return to the workplace.

Employers

Some employers dislike the workers’ compensation insurance requirement for various reasons, including financial complaints. They may feel they will be asked to pay for injuries that aren’t serious, injuries caused outside of work or by a pre-existing condition, or injuries that are the result of the carelessness of the individual seeking benefits. In reality, cases of people “gaming” the system are rare — despite the pervasive negative stigma that this is the norm.

In addition, workers often fear reprisal from their employer for filing a workers’ compensation claim. What they don’t realize is that most states have enacted varying degrees of protection for workers to prevent them from being fired for filing a claim.

Take Colorado, for instance.

If you’ve been injured on the job in an “at will” employment state like Colorado, it’s technically legal for an employer to fire you during the process of a workers’ compensation claim. However, employers are NOT legally able to fire employees out of retaliation because of the claim. They must present valid reasons for the termination. (Editors’ Note: This is true in Nebraska was as well)

Co-Workers

Another source of the negative stigma surrounding workers’ compensation is co-workers.

Other employees, perhaps influenced by their supervisor’s attitude, may feel jealous of an injured co-worker who is receiving pay and benefits without having to come to work. They may feel as though the injured worker is getting away with something. Why should they work hard for their paycheck while the so-called injured person stays home and gets paid for doing nothing?

Other co-workers may even feel resentful, believing the injured person could work at a lesser pace or easier job rather than take advantage of a program for which others must pay.

Unfortunately, many injured workers are reluctant to file for workers’ compensation benefits because they feel embarrassed and ashamed. They wonder what their co-workers might think.

Self-Criticism

Lastly, not only can the criticism of employers and co-workers make a claimant hesitate to file for workers’ compensation, but the injured person may have to overcome their own sense of pride. It’s important to understand that workers’ compensation isn’t charity or welfare, but a legitimate insurance program that’s meant to be used if needed.

If you don’t feel bad about using your auto insurance to pay for vehicle repairs after a crash or medical insurance to help pay for an annual physical, then you shouldn’t feel bad about utilizing workers’ compensation insurance.

It’s okay to ask for help when you need it.

Don’t Be Afraid to Consult a Workers’ Compensation Attorney

We think it’s past time people overcome the stigma associated with workers’ compensation.

If you or a loved one have been injured at work, you should know there’s nothing wrong or shameful about filing for workers’ compensation benefits. There’s nothing to be embarrassed about. Plenty of people with long and successful careers file workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation is an important tool for injured individuals seeking recovery and who want to become a productive member of society again as soon as possible.

While we can’t change the minds of 1 in 3 Americans, we do understand what you’re going through and we can help you navigate the process swiftly and easily. Don’t let the false stigma and stereotype of workers’ compensation deter you from pursuing the benefits you rightfully deserve.

Take the first step today by contacting an experienced workers’ compensation attorney to talk about your 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, Workers Compensation and tagged , , , .

Upon further review: 2nd thoughts on the AMA 2nd

Posted on by

Back in October, I wrote a critical post about the American Medical Association Guide to Causation of Injuries, 2nd edition. (AMA 2nd for short) But as I revised that post to submit as a more formal article, I realized some of my criticisms of the AMA 2nd were misplaced.

I still believe the AMA 2nd will be used by the defense bar to informally heighten causation standards. Other bloggers have made similar observations about the use of the AMA 2nd.

I still believe the AMA 2nd will be used in lobbying efforts by the insurance industry.

But after reviewing the AMA 2nd in more detail, I think the danger of the AMA 2nd is in the misuse rather than the use of the AMA Guides.

I came to my conclusion after reviewing materials written about the AMA 2nd by J. Mark Melhorn, MD who is one of the primary authors of the AMA 2nd.

The AMA 2nd gives doctors guidance on how to determine causation for a work injury. How the AMA 2nd differs from a traditional differential diagnosis is that the Guides ask doctors to consider statistical studies concerning causation – or epidemiology – as to whether a condition is work-related. I think it is important to note that the AMA 2nd still requires a doctor to consider work duties and other factors specific to the injured worker in determining whether an injury is work-related or not. The authors of the AMA 2nd is clear about the limits of epidemiology. The authors of the AMA Causation Guides are also clear that medical causation and legal causation are different concepts.

Because of how the AMA Guides to Permanent Impairment, 6th edition (AMA 6th) for short, have hurt injured workers, I like most plaintiff’s lawyers have a visceral reaction to anything document that includes “AMA Guide” in the title. But if I am faced with a medical report or doctor stating that my client’s work duties could not have caused his or her injuries citing to the AMA 2nd, the AMA 2nd is likely being misinterpreted.

The term “evidence-based medicine” is another trigger for plaintiff’s attorneys. Evidence-based medicine is synonymous with the use of statistical research. While the defense bar seems to have marshalled the mystique of math to their advantage, a lot of time the numbers can work for employees. Plaintiffs can cite to favorable studies linking repetitive or overuse to musulo-skeletal conditions.

Epidemiology can also be helpful to workers in other ways. In cases litigated under the ADA employers will justify discrimination based on disability under the theory that a disability or medical condition can pose a direct threat to the safety or health of others. Epidemiology can help an employee prove their medical condition poses little or no risk to their safety or the safety of others. In my experience, this is particularly true if this research is shared with specialists who have treated the individual in the past.

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, Nebraska, Workers Compensation and tagged , , .

Violating wage and hour law to get out of paying workers’ compensation

Posted on by

Violating wage and hour law can be a defense  to paying workers’ compensation – at least in Oregon. That wasn’t the formal holding of a recent Oregon Supreme Court decision involving a truck driver hurt during a driving test, but it’s the practical effect of the decision.

Thomas Robinson summarizes almost every state appellate court decision on workers’ compensation on his blog. A few weeks he posted: “Oregon Supreme Court: Minimum Wage Law May Not Be Used to Determine Claimant’s Status as Worker.”

My first reaction was, “Not a big deal. There are different standards, even within states, about coverage for wage and hour laws and workers’ compensation laws.

But then I read the post.

In the Oregon case, a professional driver was making a delivery for the company as part of a mandatory driving test. The delivery benefited the company, but the test drive was unpaid. The employee injured himself unhooking the trailer. He wasn’t hired by the company.

The question in the Oregon case was whether the worker was an employee for the purposes of workers’ compensation. More precisely the question was whether there was a contract of hire. The trial court decided that since for purposes of Oregon’s minimum wage law the employee should have been paid for the driving test, that there was an implied contract for the purposes of workers compensation. But the Oregon Supreme Court found that didn’t matter for the purposes of workers’ compensation because they couldn’t establish the existence of a contract of hire because they employee knew he was not going to get paid for the driving test, so there was not an expectation of payment, so there was no contract for hire.

This decision is terrible for many reasons. First of all, new employees are more vulnerable to injury. Truckers are also at higher risk for injury. Finally, the decision seems to tell employers that in some circumstances violating wage laws is a defense to a workers’ compensation claim.

Maybe a driving test is a close issue when it comes to wage and hour law. But I represented   one former employee in a wage and hour case who worked for several weeks without being paid. If that person had hurt themselves at work, under the reasoning of the Oregon decision, that person would not have received workers’ compensation benefits.

Employers have a strong economic incentive to violate wage laws for driving tests. In this case the employers’ potential damages under wage and hour law would be minimal – even with liquidated damages and attorney fees. That’s assuming an employee would even bring a charge. A workers’ compensation claim could cost an employer  tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills alone.

As a plaintiff’s lawyer I clearly don’t like the outcome of this decision. But some on the defense/insurance side might say that it is up to the legislative branch to fix a bad decision. Maybe, but  it’s a canon of legal interpretation that statues of covering similar areas need to construed in harmony with each other.

The precise term for this concept is in pari materia. Workers’ compensation and wage laws both regulate working conditions and the relationship between employee and employer. They should be construed together to effectuate the purpose s of each act. Holding that violating wage and hour laws can be a defense to paying workers’ compensation seems to inconsistently interpret those two laws. In pari materia is particularly important when dealing with overlap between workers’ compensation and wage and hour issues as these laws were enacted at different times.

In Nebraska, workers’ compensation laws are supposed to be liberally construed to effectuate the beneficent purpose of the act. Put another way, in a close legal case about coverage of the act, a court should find a worker to be covered. In Nebraska, contractual interpretation is a question of law. So again, in a close legal question about the existence of a contract of hire, the law should be interpreted in favor of the worker in finding the  existence of a contract of hire.

Despite all of the legal thumbs on the scale for an employee on the issue of employment in a workers’ compensation case, I am not sure how a Nebraska court would rule in a case involving an injury during an unpaid driving test. Nebraska courts have previously held than an employee injured during a pre-employment physical examination after a conditional offer of employment was not covered by workers’ compensation. The pre-employment physical exam injury case seemed  to rely on the proposition of law that a clear contractual relationship must exist before the workers’ compensation act is applicable.

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 , , .

Four reasons to question the importance of the USDOL gig economy opinion letter

Posted on by

United States Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta

The United States Department of Labor (DOL) published an opinion letter that would seem to exempt most so-called “gig economy” companies from federal wage and hour enforcement.

This opinion from the Trump DOL is a reversal of guidance from the Obama DOL stating gig economy workers should considered to be employees.

I think the DOL letter on the gig economy is news worthy, but I question its legal impact on the workplace as a whole. Here is why I would downplay the importance of the opinion letter.

Employees can still bring private causes of action for misclassification — While the letter means that the USDOL won’t initiate enforcement for wage and hour violations against companies, employees can still bring claims. Sure, these claims may get forced into arbitration, but employees through collective action have found ways to work around arbitration clauses.

Appellate courts seem to be giving less deference to agency interpretation – Traditionally courts have granted some deference to the opinions of the executive agencies charged with enforcing the relevant law. The Roberts court seems less inclined to do so. That’s not to say the Roberts court would disagree with classifying gig economy workers as independent contracts on the merits. This just means that federal appellate courts would be less likely to defer to the opinion of the Department of Labor on the issue.

The opinion letter doesn’t apply to state laws – While some states may be persuaded by USDOL opinions on classifying gig economy workers in their wage and hour laws, states are not going to be bound by that opinion — or necessarily even federal statutory law.  States also usually have different standards as to is covered by state workers’ compensation laws, state wage and hour laws and unemployment insurance laws.

For example, the Oregon Supreme Court refused to classify a worker as an employee for the purpose of workers’ compensation even though the employe was classified as employees for the purpose of state wage and hour laws. Ohio also refused to use federal law to classify an employee as part of the workforce in order to make them eligible for workers’ compensation benefits.

Opinion letters have much less force than a law – Divided government makes it hard to pass controversial legislation, so interests looking to change the law are stuck trying make changes to the law by lobbying the executive agencies that enforce and interpret those laws. But these favorable opinions don’t have the force of law behind them.

Gig economy companies have also been stymied in state legislatures in their efforts to change employee classfication laws.They are now lobbying state agencies in charge of enforcing and administering state employment laws.  

In short, gig economy companies are basically tinkering around employee protection laws at this point. Employee advocates need to be vigilant about the threats to our practices by the gig economy and its high level and bipartisan advocates.

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 Gig economy, Unemployment, Wage and Hour, Workers Compensation and tagged .

Rehm Bennett Moore Rehm and Ockander lawyers organizing and speaking at local and regional seminars

Posted on by

Rehm Bennett Moore Rehm and Ockander lawyers have helped organize and speak at several recent and upcoming seminars about workers’ compensation.

Rod Rehm is co-chairing the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys “ERISA Subrogation, Health Care, Long Term Disability and Other ERISA Benefits Workshop ” on Friday May 3rd in Lincoln. Knowledge of this area of the law helps attorneys to maximize financial recovery for workers’ compensation and personal injury clients.

The seminar features ERISA experts Eric Buchanan and David Abney. Rod met Mr. Buchanan and Mr, Abney at a seminar through WILG, the Workers Injury Law and Advocacy Group (WILG) and recruited them to present to NATA.

Speaking of WILG, Rod presented at the WILG Midwestern Conference on April 29th in Kansas City. His seminar topic is “Lessons from 40 years in the trenches”. Rod also helped organize the conference. Besides the formal seminar, the WILG regional conference was a great opportunity for lawyers who represent injured workers to learn from each other informally. Jon Rehm also attended the seminar.

Brody Ockander recently presented at the recent Baylor Evnen client conference. Brody was part of a panel of plaintiff’s attorneys who presented to insurance and human resources personnel about the plaintiff’s perspective on workers’ compensation. The fact that Brody was invited to the panel shows the regard in which he is held by opposing counsel.

In case you missed it last month, Todd Bennett was inducted into the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers. Todd joins Rod as the only plaintiff’s lawyer members of the College from Nebraska,

Our firm is proud of our role in educating lawyers and non-lawyers about workers’ compensation laws and practice. Our firm is also grateful that we have been given the opportunity to share our knowledge abut workers’ compensation.

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 , , .

Federal opioid limitations: Good intentions, bad outcomes

Posted on by

Senate Republicans and Democrats, including Presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand, have introduced legislation that would limit opioid prescriptions to a set number of days and limit refills. In my view such legislation would negatively impact people who were injured on the job.

I mostly agree with analysis of the legislation that was recently published in Rewire. One size fits all solutions don’t account for the needs of patients with chronic pain. Recently authors of the Centers for Disease Control guidelines for opioid prescriptions have stated that those guidelines have been misused to arbitrarily limit opioid prescriptions for pain management.

As a practical matter,  in my experience prescriptions for opioids are already severely limited for injured workers. Statutory limits on opioids are a good excuse for insurers and self-insureds to wash their hands of future medical care obligations under workers compensation.

Opiod prescription limitations have other effects. Pain doctors who don’t prescribe opioids have more timeh to perfrom procedures. Procedures are more profitable for doctors and increase cost. Primarry care dcotors are often reluctant to prescribe opiods which puts more pressure on pain management doctors. 

There are alternatives to opioids for pain managemen. Stem cell therapy has shown promise in treating pain. But insurers are reluctant to approve those options as that could increase costs for them and leave medical claims under workers’ compensation open.

I believe that opioid prescription monitoring is a better solution to fighting addiction than prescription limits. Those systems can flag potential problem users and get them help. In the case of someone hurt on the job who develops an addiction to pain medication, treatment for that addiction could be covered by workers compensation.

Massachusetts  also developed what amounts to a drug court for opioids within their workers’ compensation court. Problem solving courts, like drug courts, are being increasingly used to help those with substance use issues in the criminal justice system. Massachusetts has adopted the idea in an administrative setting. Federal limits on opioid prescriptions would run counter to innovative programs put in place at a state and local level.

Workers compensation laws developed in the early 20th century when workplace safety laws could only be constitutionally enacted through state police powers under the 10th Amendment. Constitutional law evolved changed during the New Deal era which gave Congress broader regulatory powers over workplace safety and the economy in general.

As a result of the broadening of federal regulatory powers, federal laws limiting opioid prescriptions would likely be constitutional even if they interfered with innovative state programs like Massachusetts workers’ compensation opioid court. While the federal government seems to feel compelled to undercut state workers compensation laws to the detriment of workers, the federal government has given up on oversight of state workers compensation laws that could benefit workers.

The United States Department of Labor monitored state workers compensation laws as result of recommendations from the National Commission on State Workers Compensation Laws. The Commission set up 18 standards for state laws. The DOL stopped overseeing state workers compensation laws in 2004.

In 2015 several Senators and Congressional members, including then and current Presidential candidate, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, wrote to the Secretary of Labor about reinstating federal oversight of state workers compensation laws. Reporting by Pro Publica highlighted the shortcomings of state workers’ compensation laws The Department of Labor has made no progress on federal oversight of state workers’ compensation laws since then.

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 , , .

Something old, something new: The 737 Max and the future of workplace safety

Posted on by

The aftermath of the Ethiopian Air 737 Max crash that killed 157 people

Even as workplace injuries decline, new threats to workplace safety are emerging. The recent crash of an Ethiopian Air 737 Max highlighted on emerging safety risk.

Safety experts attributed the crash to the 737 Max to using modern software to control machinery that was designed as long as 50 years ago. Experts believe that so-called control software works much better when it is designed together with the machinery it is meant to control.

But purchasing new machinery is expensive for business. (Or it cuts into returns for wealthy investors.) Control software is seen as a cost-saving hack.

In the case of the Ethiopian Air crash 157 crew members and passengers lost their lives. Thankfully not all accidents from using 2019 software to control 1969 machinery will be as fatal as the Ethiopian Air crash. But nonetheless accidents from industrial machinery can be gruesome and disabling even if they don’t make international news.

Obviously injuries caused by this slapdash industrial technology would be covered under workers’ compensation laws. But other laws would certainly come into play as well.

Workers who report problems with unsafe technology can bring whistleblower claims. Nebraska has broad protections for employees who report unsafe working conditions.  A complaint about an unsafe working condition can be a report of a work injury in many circumstances. Employees reporting concerns over the design of technology may also have protections under federal law. The United States Senate has opened up an investigation of the 737 Max based on issues raised by a whistleblower. Complaints about machine design could be covered under the various whislteblower laws administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Employees bring a claim under the act have an easier evidentiary standard to meet than in other forms of retaliation cases.

Employees injured on the job by defective machinery can also bring a negligence case against the manufacturer of the equipment. This so-called third party case could be worth substantially more than a workers compensation claim. But in a case involving modern software controlling old machinery, there could be a dispute over who was at fault. Producers of older technology may also be able to defend negligence claims based on a statute of repose defense which can limit claims for injuries that have yet to happen.

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, Nebraska, third party, Whistleblower, Workers Compensation and tagged , .