Tag Archives: Nebraska

Nebraska women account for majority of work injuries reported in state

Posted on by

Leaning in is harder after a work injury.

2017 marked a dubious milestone for women’s equality in Nebraska as women accounted for at least 52 percent of the 37,391 injuries reported by employers to the Nebraska Workers Compensation Court through the First Report of Injury form according to the annual report published by the court.

This figure should be taken with a few grains of salt. 2017 could just be an outlier.  The percentage of First Reports of Injury filed on behalf of women in proportion to total injuries has steadily increased since 2007, but 2017 represented an unprecedented increase in the number of women employees who had First Reports filed on their behalf. The decrease in the number of men who had employers file First Reports on their behalf was nearly as unprecedented.

Court officials also state the numbers could be skewed by the fact that gender is not a mandatory reporting item and that reported injury numbers for a particular year tend to vary from year to year because of late reporting and other factors.

There are other reasons that first report of injuries aren’t a completely reliable measure of the number of actual injuries. A report doesn’t mean that an employee was injured. Not all employers report injuries to the court either. Even if an employee was injured and an employer files a report with the court, that doesn’t mean the injury caused any substantial harm to the employee. In 2017, only 1053 petitions or lawsuits were filed in the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court.  Roughly another 700 claims were formally settled without litigation.

Women accounted for 3 of 41 workplace deaths reported to the court in 2017, so men still comprise a large majority of the most serious workers compensation claims.

But the numbers quantify a truth about workers’ compensation and the workforce in general. Women’s participation in the workforce is increasing while men’s participation is decreasing.  Workers’ compensation is still often thought of as “workman’s compensation.” Images of workers’ compensation often include men in hardhats. Men in blue collar jobs like construction and truck driving do get hurt on the job. But women also work in traditionally male jobs like construction and truck driving. Injuries are also common in more gender-neutral sectors like retail, food service and manufacturing as well as in traditionally female jobs like nursing.

Future reports by the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court may show the injury numbers from 2017 to inaccurate or an outlier, but women will continue to suffer a substantial number of workplace injuries. 

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 gender equality, Nebraska, women, Workers Compensation and tagged , , , .

Immigration, SEC cases send mixed signals from Supreme Court

Posted on by

Like Justice Stephen Breyer, many of us have pained looks when thinking about the Supreme Court this week

In a case with implications beyond securities law, the Supreme Court ruled in Lucia v. SEC  last week that an investment adviser convicted of securities fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was unconstitutionally convicted because the Administrative Law Judge (ALJs) who tried his case was hired rather than appointed in violation of the appointments clause

Lucia is not a high-profile case like Tuesday’s decsion in Trump v. Hawaii that upheld the so-called Muslim ban. To some extent the cases may seem contradictary. But the cases can be reconciled in a way that reveals some disturbing truths about the American political system. While Lucia is an important case in its own right, it makes Trump v. Hawaii more understandable.

In January 2017, I wrote about how a companion case to Lucia could potentially wreak havoc with Social Security Disability (SSDI) cases.  Like the SEC, the Social Security Administration appoints administrative law judges to adjudicate social security disability claims. ALJs are government employees who are hired by agency rather than appointed by the President or agency head. The Supreme Court held that since ALJs at the SEC had significant discretion in deciding important matters they were officers for the sake of the appointments clause so they needed to be appointed rather than hired as employees.

SSDI hearings may be distinguishable from SEC hearings in that they are less formal and less adversarial. A parrty challenging the constituionality of SSDI on appointments clause grounds might have a hard time showing they had standing to make a challenge. But other forms of administrative  hearings are more formal and adversarial and involve parties with standing to make challenges.

In Nebraska, the Department of Labor hires ALJs to hear unemployment appeals. In many states, like Iowa, workers’ compensation cases are heard by ALJsthat 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. Employees/plaintiffs have had a recent string of good decisions with state supreme courts challenngng laws they believe harm workers. Employers may decide to press their luck in the states with Lucia case as persuassive authority. The same challenges based on Lucia could conceivably be made about unemployment insurance at a state level.

Finally there was some irony in Lucia. Though ALJs hired by the SEC could only make recommendations to the commission, the court found that the commission usually deferred to the recommendation of the ALJ which was part of the reason why the ALJ was an officer rather than an employee. In Masterpiece Cakeshop an ALJ had decided that bakery had violated Colorado public accommodation laws in refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. The comments made by the Colorado civil rights commissioner that caused the decision to be reversed by the court were made after the ALJ’s decision.  But in Masterpiece the argument that the commission was probably just deferring to an ALJ decision was absent. But Masterpiece and Lucia can be somewhat reconciled logically as they both show how the Roberts court is skeptical of administrative agencies when they interpret laws and adjudicate disputes.

In his dissent in Lucia, Justice Stephen Breyer stated the Supreme Court threatened to undermine the whole system of administrative adjudication with its decision.  The most high profile of these administrative systems is the Immigration Court which is backlogged with cases. President Trump proposed “solving” the backlog of cases by just doing away with due process altogether in deportation hearings.But if four-flushers and  flim-flam men deserve  due process in administrative hearings, then so do those accused of either entering or living in the United States without authorization.

The skepticism shown by the Roberts court towards admisnisative agencies that regulate the economy was absent the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other intelligence agencies in Trump v. Hawaii. Instead the Roberts court was beyond deferential to the Executive branch in a matter they deemed to be “national security.” To those raised during  the Cold War and post-9/11 era such deference to the executive on matters of national security seems natural. But as Justice Sotomayor poitned out in her dissent, the Judiciary, Legislative and Executive are equal branches of the government.

But are the branches of the government are equal when the Executuve commands a massive standing army and massive foreign and domestic intellignece agencies? The power of the Executive in this area is even greater when combined with business interests that former President Dwight Eisenhower described as the military-industrial complex in 1961.  William Jennings Bryan made a similar warning in 1900 in what was called his “Imperalism” speech. The corrosivve effects of the military-industrial complex or empire on our democratic form of government can be seen in how the Roberts court was willing to kow-tow to the Trump administration on matters of “national security” while the corut is more than willing to second guess Congress and administtrative agencies on matters relating to regulation of the economy.

 

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, social security disability, Unemployment, 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 , , , , , , , , .

What the big California worker classification case means and could mean

Posted on by

The California Supreme Court made big news in the world of workers’ compensation and employment law last week when it adopted the employee-friendly ABC Test  for the purposes of California’s minimum wage law. The decision was seen as a set back for gig economy companies like Uber who classify their workers as independent contractors. 

The bigger story as pointed out by CNN Money reporter, Lydia DePillis , and widely acknowledged by attorneys and legal academics is the patchwork of different state labor laws and how they will impact the gig economy and workers. My room temperature take is that employee classification laws aren’t even consistent within states. Nebraska has adopted the ABC test for the purposes of unemployment and for our wage payment act by statute. But Nebraska imposes the more employer-friendly right of control/economic reality test by case law for the purposes of workers compensation.

Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta has called for an update of labor and employment laws to aid the gig economy. Experienced workers’ compensation attorneys may view the fight over the classification of gig economy workers as a potential threat to their practices but as essentially an old issue that has new prominence because of the rise of companies like Uber. But worker classification legislation is only part of the story about how the rise of the gig economy could change workers’ compensation laws. Advocates for injured workers need to understand how so-called “portable benefit” schemes could change workers’ compensation laws. If enacted, portable benefits laws could radically alter the grand bargain behind workers’ compensation laws. They could also provide more uniformity of laws regarding employee benefits and protections like workers’ compensation

A portable benefit is defined as a benefit that is paid into an employer-sponsored plan that can be transferred to a new employer or to an individual who is leaving the workplace.[At least when it comes to health insurance, portability has some real benefits for workers’ rights. Employees aren’t tied to a potentially abusive employer just for the sake of keeping their health insurance. Candidly any portable benefits scheme that expands health insurance coverage would also help workers who do not have health insurance. The pro-worker potential of portable benefits was recognized by the National Employment Law Project who issued a report with the Roosevelt Institute about how portable benefits could be implemented.

But other portable benefit plans developed by Washington D.C. think tanks run the gamut from the really bad to the just bad.

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who was influential in the design of the Affordable Care Act, wrote a paper for the Aspen Institute that proposed catch-all individual security and retirement accounts as alternatives or replacements for workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance.  Without anything in the way of attribution, Gruber breezily states that higher workers’ compensation benefit payments create a “moral hazard” which leads to more injuries and longer durations of injuries. Gruber then goes on to propose that injured workers exhaust their individual security accounts before they collect workers’ compensation benefits and that workers’ compensation benefits be subject to federal taxation. It is important to note that Gruber doesn’t limit his proposal for portable benefits to gig economy workers.

Economists Seth Harris and Alan Krueger have proposed a somewhat more worker-friendly portable benefits scheme designed for gig economy workers to be paired with a new type of employee classification between employee and independent contractor for workers in a paper did they did for The Brookings Institute. The Harris-Kruger plan would allow gig economy employers to “opt-in” to state workers’ compensation laws. But even the more worker-friendly Harris-Krueger portable benefits scheme was created mainly to reduce litigation costs for gig economy companies. Former National Labor Relations Board member and associate counsel for the AFL-CIO, Craig Becker, pointed out that creating a new class of workers may create more litigationwhen employers try to re-classify employee as a new class of worker.[5] Becker and others pointed out that this is what happened in Italy when Italy created a third class of worker that was neither employee nor independent contractor. Legislation has been introduced in California that is along the line of the Harris-Krueger plan.

Many plaintiff’s lawyers seem to, or at least want to, believe that since workers’ compensation laws were enacted under 10th Amendment police powers then workers’ compensation laws are a matter of “state’s rights” and so-called federalization is uncalled for and unconstitutional. Congress has broad authority under its taxing power to effect economic activity that is beyond even the broad scope of its power to regulate individual commerce. The individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act was found to be constitutional under congressional taxing authority even though the mandate exceeded congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce. Recently passed changes to tax law have encouraged workers to take independent contractor status.

Besides workers’ compensation, the other mandated benefits that stem from the employee-employer relationship — unemployment, Medicare and Social Security — are all effectuated in whole or in large part through federal taxes. If a portable benefits are implemented on a nationwide basis, it will likely happen through the tax code and they could be enacted in a constitutionally valid way. Any discussion about the impact of the gig economy on worker classification laws should include discussion about portable benefits proposals.


 

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, worker classification, Workers Compensation and tagged , , .

Do Employees’ Forced Smiles At Stores Cause Mental Distress?

Posted on by

Most Nebraskans and Iowans can probably sing a jingle from a regional grocery chain that promises “a helpful smile in every aisle.” But helpful smiles may have a hidden cost for employees.

A summary of 95 medical studies showed that forced cheerfulness by employees lead to psychosomatic issues like trouble sleeping, headaches and chest pain as well as decreased job satisfaction. This so-called emotional labor has also been linked to aggression in the workplace.

Retail and service industry employees are usually required to be cheerful to encourage customers to return. These pressures are likely becoming more acute as certain sectors of retail employment have declined and online giant – and burgeoning monopoly – Amazon has barged into the grocery business with their acquisition of Whole Foods.

Unfortunately, U.S. employment laws are not equipped to deal with the day-to-day mental strains placed on retail workers. Workers compensation laws generally do not compensate purely mental injuries. Workplace bullying or harassment is only legally actionable if the harassment is severe or pervasive and motivated by an unlawful factor like race, religion, nationality, sex, disability, etc. 

But employees have the power to work together, even if they aren’t in a union, to address these conditions through protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. Recently a group of employees at a Target in rural Virginia banded together to help fire a manager who had been sexually harassing employees. Granted sexual harassment may be different than forcing an employee to be cheerful when dealing with the public, but by working together employees can address unreasonable rules and requirements by an 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 employment law, Workers' Compensation, Workplace Injury, Workplace Safety and tagged , , , , , , , , .

Opioids And Doctor Choice

Posted on by

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel said in 2008 that “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” In the context of opioids and workers compensation this could mean reforms to workers compensation systems beyond drug formularies If solving the opioid crisis means limiting the number of doctors who can prescribe opioids, then there will be fewer doctors who will treat workers compensation cases.

Additional licensure and certifications aren’t unheard of in the world of occupational health. In 2016, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration implemented a new rule that only doctors on their registry can perform DOT Physical Examinations for truckers and other professional drivers. This reduced the number of doctors who can perform those examinations. 

When I testified on LB 408, a bill that would have implemented drug formularies for opioids under the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act, some doctors were testifying that there was little training in regards to prescribing opioids. Though an opioid prescription registry like the DOT examination registry wasn’t proposed, you could certainly see it proposed as a solution to the opioid problem.

By limiting the numbers of doctor who handle workers’ compensation claims through additional licensing requirements, injured employees will have fewer choices for medical treatment and are more likely to have their employer control their care.

Evidence shows that the workers compensation system has made some contribution to the opioid crisis. According to a 2015 report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics over 3.5 million employees were injured at work. Half of those injuries required the employee to miss sometime from work. A study of employees in 25 states done by the Workers Compensation Research Institute revealed that 55 to 85 percent of employees who missed at least one week of work were prescribed at least one opioid prescription.

When I testified on LB 408 the consensus among the doctors testifying on the legislation was that injured workers were more vulnerable to narcotic addiction than other patients who are prescribed narcotic pain medication. Scientific studies give some credence to these conclusions. Workers compensation claims can cause economic insecurity. According to an article in Scientific America, Addiction rates for opioids are 3.4 times higher for those with incomes under $20,000 per year than they are for employees making more than 50,000 per year.

But that article also shared studies that state that pain pill prescriptions are not driving the opioid epidemic. Patients with pre-existing addiction issues are more likely to become addicted to opioids and 75 percent of those who develop opioids start taking opioids in a non-prescribed manner. Furthermore, only 12 to 13 percent of ER patients who are treated for opioid overdoses are chronic pain patients.

Workers’ Compensation is traditionally an area of the law that is controlled by the states. Regulation of drugs is generally an area reserved for the federal government. Any laws imposing additional hurdles or requirements upon doctors who prescribe opioid drugs may have to come from the federal government.

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 Government, Legislation, Workers' Compensation, Workplace Injury and tagged , , , , , , , .

Kansas Supreme Court Decides Whether Undocumented Immigrants Are Entitled To Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Posted on by

Are undocumented immigrants entitled to workers’ compensation benefits in Nebraska?

Recently, the Kansas Supreme Court examined the same question that has been previously answered by the Nebraska courts.

The short answer is, yes. Undocumented workers are entitled to most workers’ compensation benefits under Nebraska law. The exception is that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to the vocational rehabilitation benefit because the worker is not legally permitted to be in the country.

To some people, Nebraska law and this Kansas decision make sense, but unfortunately many people believe that undocumented workers should not be entitled to work comp. This argument fails for the following reasons:

  1. If someone is injured at work and needs to seek medical treatment, it must be paid somehow. If it is not paid by workers’ compensation (even though the injury occurred at work), the cost of that treatment will be passed to the medical providers and the general-public. The employer will get away scot-free while everyone else would share the burden of mounting healthcare costs.
  2. Employers should not get a benefit of hiring undocumented workers over citizens or documented workers. As stated above, if the employer does not have to pay workers’ compensation benefits for an injured, undocumented worker, the employer will be encouraged to hire undocumented workers over others as cost-savings. It is the employer’s responsibility to hire documented workers, but if it means the cost-savings of not having to pay work comp benefits, you can bet that employer will try to hire undocumented workers over others.
  3. Similar to the previous reason, employers would be discouraged from taking safety measures to ensure the safety of its workers if it knows that it won’t be required to pay for undocumented workers’ injuries. This would make the workplace more dangerous for all workers.
  4. Regardless of citizenship, an injured worker has an inalienable right to be treated for work injuries simply based on the fact that his/her job has made money for that employer. This is the whole point of the workers’ compensation system: to provide a quick (relatively speaking) and efficient way to get medical treatment and compensation for any worker that is injured while making money for that employer. Without the beneficiary of the work that cause the injury being required to pay work comp, this burden would inevitably be pushed to tax payers in one form or another. In other words, taxpayers should certainly want undocumented immigrants to get workers’ compensation benefits.

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 , , , , .