Category Archives: Government

Rule Requiring Disclosure of Labor Law Violations by Federal Contractors Temporarily Blocked by Federal Courts

Posted on by
President Barack Obama signs the "Fair Pay and Safe Workplace" executive order in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building South Court Auditorium, July 31, 2014. The President is joined on stage by Labor Secretary Thomas Perez as well as employers who support fair labor practices, workers who have seen firsthand the effects of workplace violations, and advocates who have worked to improve fair pay and safety standards. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama signs the “Fair Pay and Safe Workplace” executive order in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building South Court Auditorium, July 31, 2014. The President is joined on stage by Labor Secretary Thomas Perez as well as employers who support fair labor practices, workers who have seen firsthand the effects of workplace violations, and advocates who have worked to improve fair pay and safety standards. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

A federal judge in Texas recently issued a temporary injunction against the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order. The order would have required contractors applying for federal contracts to disclose any violations of most federal and state labor and employment laws within the last three years in order to receive a federal contract over $500,000.

In an opinion criticized by employees’ groups and hailed by employers’ groups, U.S. District Judge Marcia Crone criticized that the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order overstepped executive authority on a number of grounds, including the fact that the forced disclosure violated the First Amendment rights of government contractors. The order amounted to defamation of certain contractors, which violated their Fifth Amendment liberty interests, and the order’s restriction on the use of arbitration agreement in employment contracts of federal contractors violated the Federal Arbitration Act.

Crone also wrote that the executive order violated congressional intent in how labor laws were enforced, because it forced contractors to settle labor and employment law issues in order to remain eligible for government contracts.

But in my mind, abstract concerns about the rights of contractors pale once actual people are considered. I represented a gentleman who was fired from a federal contractor after he complained about not being paid properly. In fact, he was chased off the premises by the owner of the company with a stun gun, and the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission found in a public hearing, after hearing evidence from both sides, that the company, Midwest Demolition, had retaliated against my client. Earlier this year, Midwest Demolition paid a settlement through a consent decree to the U.S. Department of Labor for not paying their employees overtime. To me, the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order is perfectly suited to deal with egregious employer misconduct.

Judge Crone did not order an injunction against enforcement of the paycheck transparency parts of the executive order, which would require federal contractors to inform workers if they were independent contractors and to fully and clearly explain deductions.

The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order is the latest example of the use of executive-branch rule-making to expand employee protections. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld a Department of Labor regulation expanding wage and hour protections to home health aides after it withstood a court challenge from employers. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s attempt to limit post-work injury drug testing is currently being challenged in federal courts. Executive rule-making is a consequence of partisan gridlock when Democrats control the presidency and Republicans control Congress. Pundits and political forecasters are anticipating more political gridlock after the election, so executive rules that withstand court challenges could be how employee rights expand for the foreseeable future.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, 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, Government and tagged , , .

What Could You Possibly Know About Your Own Disability?

Posted on by

disability self reportingIn 1991, the Social Security Administration drafted a rule that explained that controlling weight was given to medical opinions from treating sources about the nature and severity of claimants’ impairments if they are well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and are not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. This rule is commonly known as the “treating physician rule.”

The SSA has recently proposed a number of changes to this rule based upon a 2013 study (downloadable PDF). Among the recommendations were to no longer apply controlling weight to doctor opinions addressing the following issues:

  • Statements that an individual is or is not disabled, blind, able to work, or able to perform regular or continuing work;
  • Statements about whether or not an individual’s impairment(s) meets the duration requirement for disability;
  • Statements about whether or not an individual’s impairment(s) meets or equals any listing in the Listing of Impairments;
  • Statements about whether or not an individual’s impairment(s) functionally equals the Listings.

The SSA will also not use a diagnosis, medical opinion, or an individual’s statement of symptoms to establish the existence of impairment. A physical or mental impairment would now need to be established by “objective medical evidence.”

It’s easy to understand how discounting a treating source could adversely affect applicants for disability. These physicians have the most interaction with their patients in terms of frequency and duration of involvement. When you contrast a treating physician’s opinion with a doctor chosen by the SSA who most often never even meets or speaks with the claimant, you can see the problem. Putting these two entities on the same footing legally seems misguided at best and purposefully devious at worst.

However, when you add in that the SSA will not use an individual’s statement of symptoms as a basis for finding disability, particularly in the mental-health field, you make proving disability a much more difficult proposition than it already is. Individuals who are applying for disability typically face difficulty seeing doctors on a regular basis due to obvious financial considerations.  They often cannot afford the “objective” tests to fully explore the extent of their diagnoses. Moreover, there are no objective tests to diagnose depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, etc. The very nature of these claims requires a thorough examination of the claimant’s expression of disability to diagnose, evaluate and treat. The SSA cannot possibly ignore the claimant’s accounts of their disability and do an adequate job of evaluating these claims, especially the ones based upon mental illness.

The SSA needs to jettison these proposed rule changes, and stick with the controlling weight standard that has been in place for 25 years. Furthermore, they need to allow the judges to evaluate claimant testimony without rigid rules that discount their personal evidence.

To comment on the SSA proposal, follow this link: Regulations.gov – Docket Folder Summary and press the “Comment Now!” button. Comments are due Nov. 8 (next Tuesday, aka Election Day).

Please contact an experienced Social Security Disability lawyer with specific questions about the details of your case.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, 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, social security disability and tagged , , , .

Your Vote Matters: State Elections Affect Injured Workers’ Benefits, Workers’ Compensation Systems

Posted on by

The rights and benefits of injured people are heavily influenced and affected by the representatives who are elected at the state level for office.

Rehm, Bennett & Moore urges you to vote and recommends these candidates for the Nebraska Legislature. Voting for these candidates will help protect your rights to receive proper compensation for injuries, lost earnings and damages.

These are candidates who have gone on the record that they will work hard to protect a fair workers’ compensation system, unrestricted access to the courts for legitimate claims, and full personal responsibility for anyone who chooses to ignore the safety of others. Please do your research before voting, and be sure to cast your vote on Nov. 8.

Finally, here’s a blog post from 2014 that talks more about the importance of considering injured workers and their loved ones when you vote: Examining Workers’ Compensation’s ‘Grand Bargain’ and the Upcoming Election

These candidates would appreciate your vote.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, 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 and tagged , , , , , .

Drinks, Dinners, Junkets and Jobs: How The Insurance Industry Courts State Commissioners

Posted on by

shady-state-politicsToday’s blog post comes from Michael J. Mishak’s article in The Center for Public Integrity, which is located at publicintegrity.org.

The headline says a lot about the article. Though it’s a lengthy read, the article is worth the time it takes to digest it.

Nebraska and Iowa are the two states that we are most concerned with, as that’s where our lawyers are licensed to practice. In addition, these two states are important nationally because many insurance companies have their corporate headquarters in Nebraska and Iowa. I found it very illuminating that there are stories about both states regarding relationships and experiences that government officials who are insurance regulators have with insurance industry executives. Iowa also seems to be a mixed bag, with the same person asking for “more funding to buoy regulators” but at another time, splitting hairs on the state’s definition of lobbying.

I have written on how the “Workers’ Comp Industrial Complex” harms workers, which was based on an expose in ProPublica. It may be time for media coverage that looks into the overlap, favors and cozy ties that insurance companies have with the government regulators who are supposed to hold them accountable.

“The stakes are enormous,” Mishak writes in the CPI article.

“Because Congress has long left regulation of the insurance industry to the states, these little-known regulators, one per state, wield immense power over one of the largest segments of the U.S. economy. Charged chiefly with protecting consumers, commissioners review rate changes, investigate complaints and make sure insurers have enough money to pay claims.”

Consumers who rely on their insurance to protect them need to be able to trust that insurance commissioners with so much power and so little transparency will still have consumers’ best interests at heart, instead of prioritizing the interests of commissions’ friends in the insurance industry.


Who’s Calling the Shots in State Politics?

Drinks, dinners, junkets and jobs: how the insurance industry courts state commissioners

Center probe reveals cozy relationships, revolving doors and shady financial ties

By Michael J. Mishak

When the Arkansas insurance commissioner weighed the merits of a hospital’s billing complaint against United Healthcare, her interactions with one of the nation’s largest health insurers extended far beyond her department’s hearing room.

During months of deliberations, Commissioner Julie Benafield Bowman met repeatedly with United Healthcare lawyers and lobbyists over lunch and drinks at venues such as the Country Club of Little Rock.

“I had a blast with you Monday night,” Benafield emailed United Healthcare lawyer Bill Woodyard, himself a former state insurance commissioner. “Thank you so much for entertaining us.”

Commissioner Benafield ultimately decided the case in United Healthcare’s favor — a 2008 ruling that stood to save the company millions of dollars. Nearly two years later, by the time a judge vacated the commissioner’s orders because there was “an appearance of impropriety in the proceedings,” Benafield had moved on: She was working for United Healthcare, having joined at least three of her predecessors representing insurers in Arkansas.

Read more at The Center for Public Integrity.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, 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, Iowa, justice, Money, Nebraska and tagged , , , .

Is the Rule of Law Under Attack?

Posted on by
Chinese Rights Lawyers Wang Yu (top) and Bao Longjun (bottom)

Chinese Rights Lawyers Wang Yu (top) and Bao Longjun (bottom)

Our colleague in North Carolina recently wrote a blog post about a terrorist attack on lawyers in Pakistan that killed 60 lawyers. It was an attack on the rule of law. A less bloody, but no less brutal, campaign against the rule of law is taking place in China under the increasingly authoritarian rule of Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

Jinping has targeted so-called “rights lawyers,” or lawyers who, like United States’ plaintiffs’ lawyers, represent individuals against major institutions such as corporations and the government. In rhetoric echoing attacks on U.S. trial lawyers, Chinese rights lawyers have been described as “abusing courts to create personal gain and ‘social chaos’.”

Chinese rights lawyers make up a small part of the 270,000 lawyers in China, but in China, there also so-called “barefoot lawyers” who aren’t lawyers at all but are usually self-taught workers and peasants who have learned the law. Barefoot lawyers often advocate for employees in industrial work injury and wage-dispute cases. These barefoot lawyers have frequently been victims of these abuses as well. China’s industrial workforce is similar to the U.S. workforce in the respect that many workers are vulnerable to exploitation because of their legal status. In the United States, undocumented immigrants are vulnerable on the job. In China, residents of rural provinces who move to industrial urban provinces have a lesser legal status in those provinces because of the hukou system. Barefoot lawyers often come from the same rural background as their clients. Like the better educated and credentialed “rights lawyers,” barefoot lawyers are also subject to harassment and repression from the state.

Though U.S. lawyers are generally free from official harassment, some corporate litigants have resorted to totalitarian tactics against plaintiffs’ attorneys. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff smacked down Uber for hiring a former CIA agent to investigate an attorney prosecuting a class action suit against the ride-hailing company. Investigation tactics included using fake reporters to try to probe the plaintiff’s attorney for personal information.

So while the rule of law is much more secure in the United States than it is in many other countries, it is still threatened by overheated rhetoric and underhanded tactics.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, 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, Government, justice, Legislation and tagged , , , , .

9-11: 15 Years Remembered

Posted on by

What have we learned, and what is the progress we have made toward helping those who help others?

As we remember and celebrate that fateful day, we should continue to celebrate and protect those who risk their lives to help others but who continue to live with the mental and emotional effects when faced with such tragic events encountered in responding to the call to serve.

In Nebraska, we have recognized that with tragic events come the effects to some who just can’t mentally and emotionally get past those events. We have garnered some protections for those first responders whose job it is to serve when emergency matters require it.

First responders have a specific definition as set forth in Nebraska Revised Statute 48-101.01, but essentially if a person serves as an officer, fireman or medical emergency personnel who is called to an emergency response situation, then that person has some workers’ compensation protections.

Personal injury now “includes mental injuries and mental illness unaccompanied by physical injury for an employee who is a first responder” if that person suffers from PTSD, depression, anxiety, mood disorder, panic attacks, reactionary diversion, neurotic disorder, etc.

One must establish “that the employee’s employment conditions causing the mental injury or mental illness were extraordinary and unusual in comparison to the normal conditions of the particular employment” in which they serve.  What is usual is constantly being debated and disputed, but an event causing significant bodily injury or death is not usual in the eyes of the courts.

What is not covered or considered compensable are “mental injuries and mental illness arising out of and in the course of employment unaccompanied by physical injury … if they result from any event or series of events which are incidental to normal employer and employee relations, including, but not limited to, personnel actions by the employer such as disciplinary actions, work evaluations, transfers, promotions, demotions, salary reviews, terminations” or going through the legal process in unrelated matters.

Sometimes employers will retaliate against employees who claim work injuries. Though demotions, write-ups and post-injury terminations aren’t compensable through workers’ compensation, there could be a retaliation or disability discrimination claim. First responders who believe they might be being retaliated against should also reach out to the NAPE/AFSCME, IAFF or FOP representative immediately to help preserve their employment.

We have come a long way in the 15 years since 9-11 in providing protections and workers’ compensation coverage to first responders who make it their job to serve and protect. But what about those who were working and saw and experienced this tragedy who are not first responders? They continue to not be covered for their mental and emotional effects. On this anniversary date, as we remember those who served, we need to continue to fight for everyone who encounters tragic events in the course and scope of their employment and suffers mental illness or conditions, but do not suffer a physical injury. They need the protections workers’ compensation coverage can provide, just like first responders.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, 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 and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , .

How Do Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Judges End Up on the Bench?

Posted on by

There are seven judges who are active in the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court. These judges are solely workers’ compensation judges and do not hear any other cases outside of the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court. Four of the judges have offices in Lincoln, and three have offices in Omaha, but the seven judges cover the entire state. Trials are conducted by these judges in the county where the work-related injury occurred. If the injury occurred outside of the state, the hearing is held in Lincoln or in any other venue to which the parties agree.

How do these judges end up on the bench? The workers’ compensation judges in Nebraska are not elected, unlike in some states. Instead, like all state-court judges in Nebraska, a pool of judicial candidates is screened and narrowed by a judicial nominating commission. These commissions are made up of both lawyers and laypersons from both political parties and also independents. After the narrowing process, the governor appoints a judge from that limited group. After the appointment, every six years, the judge will be up for a vote of the general public as to whether the judge should be retained on the bench. If the vote is to retain the judge, then that judge remains for another six-year term.

A system like this does a good job of narrowing the candidates for the governor to a group of the most qualified. Further, this process usually limits politics in the judiciary and it is greatly preferable to the states where judges are simply elected. Here is a good video explaining why.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, 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, Nebraska, Omaha, Workers' Compensation and tagged , , , .

What Does this Improper Medical Treatment Sanction from OSHA Mean?

Posted on by

BoheadFor the first time ever, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently sanctioned a Pilgrim’s Pride chicken processing plant for providing improper medical treatment for employees suffering from overuse injuries. While the hazards of meatpacking work to employees is common knowledge and the packing industry is frequently sanctioned for unsafe work practices, the sanction against Pilgrim’s Pride for failing to provide medical care to their workers in Florida indicates OSHA is opening a new front in the battle for a safe workplace.

While OSHA’s sanctioning Pilgrim’s Pride for providing inadequate medical care to their injured workers is novel, their action is consistent with law that states access to prompt and appropriate medical care is crucial to pursuing a workers’ compensation claim. OSHA sanctioned Pilgrim’s Pride for failure to make timely and proper referrals to specialists for orthopedic injuries when employees sought treatment at company first-aid or nursing stations. According to OSHA, delays in treatment can lead to permanent injuries.

The fact that OSHA deems inadequate medical care to be a violation of its regulations could also mean that employees have a statutorily protected right to oppose inadequate medical care. In Nebraska, this would mean that employees could possibly sue their employers under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act. Celeste Monforton, a professor of public health at George Washington University, noted in her post that employers use company health clinics not only to delay treatment but to discourage employees from seeking medical care. Some employers go so far as to discipline employees who do not get permission from their employer to seek outside medical treatment. A recent case in an Illinois federal court stated such policies were illegal.

While Nebraska does not have any case law similar to Illinois about such policies, there is a strong argument to make that such policies would be illegal under Nebraska law and under the law of any state that prohibits retaliation against employees for filing workers’ compensation claims. Policies that require notification and permission to seek medical treatment from employers could also run afoul of Nebraska’s laws allowing employees to choose their own doctors. One Nebraska court has hinted that the right to pick a doctor is a legally protected activity.

Monforton also pointed out that Pilgrim’s Pride could be committing medical malpractice by failing to provide proper care and having nurses treat injured employees without proper medical supervision.

However, packinghouses have some reason to believe that they are immune from medical malpractice suits filed by their employees against their employee health nurses. The legal shorthand for this is called the exclusive remedy. In practice, this means that an employer who provides medical treatment in a negligent manner to an employee who is treating for a work injury can only be sued in workers’ compensation court.

Of course, there are some ways around the exclusive remedy for medical care. The first exception would be that if employee health was outsourced. This would allow an employee to sue that provider directly and could also allow for a civil conspiracy or civil RICO claim.

There may also be other exceptions as well. For example, Nebraska has a Meatpacking Industry Workers Bill of Rights that states that workers employed at covered meatpacking houses have a right to a safe workplace and the right to seek benefits, including workers’ compensation. If an employer does not provide adequate medical care or provides negligent medical care, that could certainly violate the public policy behind the Meatpacking Industry Workers Bill of Rights and warrant a tort case against the packinghouses under the public policy of the state of Nebraska.