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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 example of beryiluim could explain why exposure to manganese levels at supposedly safe levels can lead to occupational disease. Those supposedly safe levels of exposure may not actually be safe. Another explanation about why supposedly safe levels of manganese lead to Parkinson’s could be found in the practices of the coal industry. Howard Berkes of NPR and Ken Ward Jr., author of the excellent Coal Tattoo blog for the Charleston (WV.) Gazette Mail teamed up to report on how coal companies would fudge coal dust level testing to make it appear that miners were exposed to much lower levels of coal dust than they were actually exposed.
OSHA’s rules could also be reversed by Congress under the Congressional Review Act. In 2001, the OSHA ergonomics rule that would have reduced musculo-skeletal injuries was reversed under this law.
Mike Elk of Payday Report recently ran an article detailing that workplace deaths among Latinos were the highest in 2015 than they had been since 2007. This spike was attributed in part to aggressive immigration enforcement by the Obama administration which immigrant advocates believed made workers afraid to speak out about working conditions over fear of deportation.
The repeal of the Affordable Care Act (President Barack Obama’s health care law) is a real possibility in the Trump administration. It will be difficult to know how a repeal would affect workers’ compensation without having an idea about what alternative plan, if any, would replace the Affordable Care Act. But it seems certain that if Americans lose health insurance, they will have less control over their own medical care if they are hurt at work.
In 2011, Vermont passed a single-payer health care plan. In a blog post I wrote for Jon Gelman’s blog, I observed that if all employees had their own doctors, it would be next to impossible for employers to route injured workers to occupational-medicine clinics. A blogger for Lynch Ryan made a similar observation. Doctor choice is critical, because some employers go so far as to unlawfully conspire with claims adjusters and doctors to undermine the value of an employee’s workers’ compensation claim. A single-payer system decouples health insurance from employment, which makes employers less influential in the system
The ACA is not a single-payer system, but millions of Americans gained health insurance through public Medicaid programs in states that chose to expand Medicaid after the Supreme Court struck down the mandated Medicaid expansion in 2012. This coverage was decoupled from employment. Insurance obtained through an exchange is also not tied to individual employers either. People who lacked health insurance tended to not have doctors, which meant that they had no choice but to see whomever their employer wanted them to for a work injury.
The biggest advantage this decision has for workers is the fact that a worker may dismiss a case at any time without prejudice under § 48-177 without having to worry about a counterclaim still hanging out there. In other words, this decision could prevent employers from forcing a trial before plaintiff is ready or if plaintiff wants to wait for trial until after the she or he is done treating.
Another benefit of this recent decision might be a little less obvious. Under Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that a worker may be able to have workers’ compensation coverage in multiple states for the same accident/injury. The reason this is important with respect to counterclaims is that the injured worker now has the ability to dismiss the lawsuit to allow for potentially more-favorable benefits in another state, while still maintaining the option to return to Nebraska jurisdiction at a later date if necessary.