Tag Archives: Constitutional Law

Appellate courts aren’t going to preserve workers’ compensation

Posted on by

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a “reform” of New York workers’ compensation laws made by Liberty Mutual

Employee advocates, me included, are still trying to process just how bad this latest session of the Supreme Court was for workers. There were bad decisions in wage and hour, whistleblower, forced arbitation and labor law. In lower profile decisions,  the court may have encroached into how work injury cases are litigated and rejected a constitutional challenge to state level reforms.

The Supreme Court may have handed employers/insurers a way to mount constitutuonal challneges to some state workers’ compensation laws in Lucia v. SEC. (Lucia is of more immediate concerns to Longshore and FECA practitioners who have their cases heard by ALJs ). In many states, like Iowa, workers’ compensation cases are heard by Administrative Law Judges that are hired as civil servants rather than appointed  by the Executive. SEC v. Lucia could help employers/insurers to make persuasive appointments clause arguments under state constitutions  that such arrangements are unconstitutional.

Advocates for injured workers have taken some solace in a string of good outcomes in front of state courts in Kansas, Pennslyvania, Oklahoma, Florida and Alabama. But even that run of state-level wins has come to a halt for now.

The Oklahoma Supreme court rejected a constitutional challenge  to Oklahoma’s mandated use of American Medical Association Guides (AMA Guides) to Permanent Impairment, Sixth Edition. Thomas Robinson pointed out the case was distinguishable from a Pennsylvania case strking down a law mandating the use of the “latest” guides because the Oklahoma legislature expressly adopted the AMA 6th to determine how they would pay scheudled member disability. 

Oklahoma isn’t the only state where consitutional challenges to anti-workers changes to workers’ compensation laws have failed recently. The Supreme Court denied certiorari — refused to hear an appeal — from a New York Court of Appeals decision overruling a contracts clause and takings clause challenge to New York’s workers’ compensation law by workers’ compensation insurer, Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual was challenging the end of employer contributions to New York’s Special Fund for Reopened Cases that was part of reforms to New York’s workers’ compensation laws made in 2013. The Fund for Reopened cases allows employees to be compensated for cases where claims were at least 7 years old and no benefits had been paid for three years. Essentially the Fund ensures that the costs of old work injuries don’t get unfairly shifted on to workers and other payors. By abolishing the employer contribution, New York state essentially stuck workers’ compensation insurers with the cost of old injuries without being compensated by employers.

Essentially the Supreme Court refused to consider overturning state-level workers’ compensation reform based on the federal constitution. I think there is some consolation in the fact that the successful challenges to workers’ compensation were made on due process and equal protection grounds, while the unsuccessful New York challenge was based on the takings and contract clause. Historically the contracts clause  was used to strike down pro-worker laws enacted by states starting in the late 19th century. (I also find some personal consolation that the successful constitutional challenges to comp reform have been mounted by plaintiff’s lawyers from small firms, while the New York challenge was unsuccessfully argued by a former United States Solicitor General.)

The demise of the Fund for Reopened Cases was prompted by an earlier reform that abolished the Second Injury Fund in New York because insurers pushed former Second Injury Fund cases into the Fund for Reopened Cases. Second Injury Funds were intended to encourage hiring of injured employees by ensuring that new employers were not stuck with the entire cost of aggravation of old injury by a previously injured worker. New York is far from the only state that has abolished second injury funds. Insurance thought-leader types seem to believe that Second Injury Funds aren’t necessary because of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Anyone with any experience litigating ADA cases for employees would beg to differ.

Fundamentally, the failed New York and Oklahoma court challenges are illustrative of disturbing larger trends in the arena of workers’ compensation. First, constitutional challenges are not a foolproof method of defeating workers’ compensation reform. Secondly even when court challenges do succeed they represent the inverse of the conditions that made workers’ compensation laws possible. Workers’ compensation laws were enacted by legislatures in the face of a court systems that as a whole was either indifferent or hostile to the interests of workers hurt on the job. Now advocates for injured workers look to courts for relief from hostile legislatures. Looking to state appellate courts as an antidote to workers’ compensation reform may become less of an option as anti-worker Governors appoint anti-worker judges. Ensuring the workers’ compensation system protects injured workers will probably depend on the same type of mass politics that lead to the enactment of workers’ compensation laws. That kind of politics is probably beyond the scope of the relative small number of attorneys who represent injured employees, but those of who represent injured workers’ need to ally with broader worker movements and make sure that workers’ compensation is a high priority for other worker 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 Constitutional law, Supreme Court, Workers Compensation and tagged , , .

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Takeaways from the Demise of the Oklahoma Option in Workers’ Compensation

Posted on by

oklahoma-ruling-vasquez-v-dillardsThe Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the so-called “Oklahoma Option” in Vasquez v. Dillard’s was one of the biggest events in the world of workers’ compensation. Vasquez represents a growing trend by advocates for injured workers recognizing that workers’ compensation is a matter of constitutional law. But the Vasquez decision is important for other reasons.

Opt-Out is Still Viable

Though some commentators declared the defeat of the Oklahoma option was the death of opt-out, many justices on the Oklahoma Supreme Court who overturned the Oklahoma option would disagree.

A concurring opinion contrasted the Oklahoma opt-out system with the Texas opt-out system. In Texas, employers are not required to have or “subscribe” to workers’ compensation. But if Texas employers do not subscribe to workers’ compensation, injured Texas employees can sue their employer in tort with all affirmative defenses stripped away. This encourages employers to carry workers’ compensation insurance. Nebraska has a similar law for agricultural employers who are exempt from having to carry workers’ compensation.

Oklahoma’s “opt-out” created separate workers’ compensation systems: the state system under the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA) or the private systems under the Oklahoma Employee Injury Benefit Act (OEIBA), where employees were eligible for the same benefits but where employers could draft their own rules for eligibility. Regardless of whether an employee was covered under the AWCA or the OEIBA, employers still had to be covered under one system or another, and employees could not sue their employer in tort for work injuries. What doomed the Oklahoma option was the fact that unfair procedures under the OEIBA created separate but unequal workers’ compensation systems.

The contrast between the now defunct Oklahoma option and the still-viable Texas opt-out system was reinforced when the Vasquez court rejected Dillard’s argument that Vasquez’s claim was pre-empted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) law. Under the Oklahoma option, plans under the OEIBA were to be governed by the ERISA law. However, since OEIBA served as workers’ compensation and ERISA plans that serve as workers’ compensation plans do not pre-empt state workers’ compensation laws, the OEIBA was not pre-empted by federal law. In contrast, state law claims against employers on disability insurance plans who are “nonsubscribers” in Texas are pre-empted by ERISA.

Few, If Any States, Are Going to Implement the Oklahoma Option

The Oklahoma option was struck down on equal-protection grounds based on the Oklahoma state constitution. Most other states have similar provisions in their state constitutions. In Nebraska, that provision is found at Article III, Section 18 of our state constitution. This provision concerns itself with disparate treatment in much the same manner as does the language of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits a state from making or enforcing any law that denies any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.” Distinctive Printing & Packaging Co. v. Cox, 232 Neb. 846, 443 N.W.2d 566 (1989). Even in a state without an equal protection clause in the state constitution, separate but unequal workers’ compensation systems could be likely be struck down on equal-protection grounds under the U.S. Constitution.

Injured Workers Are a Protected Class

Injured workers are sometimes subject to retaliation for bringing workers’ compensation claims. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court distinguished “discrimination” or “protected status” from “retaliation” or “protected activity” cases under Title VII and held that there was a higher burden of proof for employees bringing a retaliation case than for an employee bringing a discrimination case. However, if injured workers are thought of as a protected class, then discrimination in the form of termination should be thought of as a form of discrimination, and those claims should be subject to a more relaxed burden of proof than required in the Nassar 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 Courts, Government, Workers' Compensation, Workers' Compensation Reform and tagged , , , , , , .