Tag Archives: Workers Compensation

Immunity by executive order probably isn’t constitutional, but beware of federal immunity for COVID-19 in workers’ compensation

Posted on May 4, 2020 by Jon Rehm

The Supreme Court held that Harry Truman overstepped his authority under the Defense Production Act in *Youngstown Sheet and Tube*

Last week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order shielding meatpacking firms like Tyson from legal liability over COVID-19. Trump’s order was based on the Defense Production Act (DPA).

Seeing the forest from the trees

From a legal perspective, the order is unenforceable. But getting bogged down in the legal weeds misses an important point about the order. The President of the United States has stated that packinghouses are immune from liability under the law for COVID-19 exposure. Regardless of the legal technicalities, that statement will likely discourage workers from filing workers’ compensation claims against meatpackers. I also fear managers of those plants will use the order as an excuse to shift the cost of COVID-19 exposures onto enhanced unemployment or short-term disability policies if workers file those claims.

Executive orders and Youngstown Sheet and Tube

Federal courts have held that the Defense Production Act does not immunize corporations from tort claims. Furthermore, in order to invoke the Defense Production Act, it would appear a company needs to be performing an actual government contract. The DPA fails to shield companies that are just producing their product for the private market.

But even if the DPA applies to meatpackers during the COVID-19 pandemic, the President has limited powers under the DPA. In 1952, President Harry Truman tried to use the DPA to force steel production during the Korean War. In Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court held that since Congress had not specifically authorized such an order that Truman’s order was unconstitutional. Cheap meat during a pandemic is hardly the national security crisis that a shortage of steel during a major war.

Legally, this executive order immunizing packinghouses from COVID-19 claims should be filed in a recycling can. But corporate America is already planning to immunize itself from litigation from COVID-19 in a way that could be enforceable. I also believe these efforts will be aimed at workers’ compensation.

Federal legislation and COVID-19 immunity

The legal problems with Trump’s order on immunizing meatpacking plants under the DPA is the lack of Congressional authority. However, the Senate is proposing legislation that would prevent consumers and employees from suing corporations for exposure to COVID-19

Opponents of this legislation, point out, like I have earlier, that suits against businesses for COVID-19 are hard to prove. Opponents of the legislation also argue like I have earlier, that workers’ compensation already limits the liability of corporations for COVID-19 exposure from their employees.

My guess is that many readers of this blog possess some expertise in the workers’ compensation and workplace law general. I can imagine those readers saying something a long the lines of “Even if McConnell’s federal tort reform plan gets past Nancy Pelosi, there is no way it would apply to workers’ compensation. Workers’ compensation is a state issue.”

I believe this argument amounts to wishful thinking.

The 10^th Amendment and workers’ compensation

Most workers compensation lawyers would argue that that two propositions would prevent Congress from giving federal immunity to employers under state workers’ compensation laws for COVID-19 exposure. One, workers’ compensation laws are enacted under 10^th Amendment police powers. Workers’ compensation is also a law regulating insurance. State law generally governs insurance under the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

But federal and state courts have questioned the applicability of state workers’ compensation laws in regulating air ambulance charges. In technical legal jargon, state workers’ compensation laws have been mostly preempted by federal law on air ambulance charges because regulation of air ambulances is a matter of federal law. I believe the air ambulance charge cases could persuade courts that federal immunity for COVID-19 litigation would apply to workers’ compensation cases.

The 10^th Amendment and state quarantine orders

The 10^th Amendment is also the constitutional authority state governors and local officials rely upon for stay at home orders. President Trump has attacked some Governors for invoking that authority to impose quarantine or shelter in place order.

But more importantly, Attorney General William Barr has stated the Department of Justice will question state laws related to COVID-19 that unduly inhibit national commerce. Barr seems to be reviving the concept of the “dormant commerce clause”. Federal courts used the dormant commerce clause to overturn state laws regulating the workplace in the Lochner era.

I believe corporate America and their political allies will use federal legislation to undercut state workers’ compensation laws. Advocates fro injured workers should stay vigilant during this crisis.

Holding meatpackers accountable for COVID-19 cases with public nuisance litigation

Posted on April 27, 2020 by Jon Rehm

The JBS Swift plant in Grand Island, Neb. is at the center of a COVID-19 outbreak in that community. (Photo credit to KTIC Radio)

The New York Times reported on a public nuisance lawsuit filed against Smithfield Foods for COVID-19 exposure created by a pork processing plant in Milan, Missouri.

What’s novel about the public nuisance suit is that it sues Smithfield for its effect on the surrounding community, not its employees.

Meatpacking plants are a hotbed of COVID-19 exposure in small cities and rural areas across the country. In Nebraska, workers at JBS Swift in Grand Island and Tyson in Lexington have high rates of COVID-19 exposure. Reports trace nearly 40 percent of COVID-19 exposures in Grand Island to JBS.

The Missouri case against Smithfield describes how fast line speeds help spread COVID-19. Workers and their advocates have long expressed concerns about line speed in meat packing plants. Line-speed is related to widespread joint and muscle injuries in packinghouses.

In my job, I spend a fair amount of time in both Grand Island and Lexington litigating against JBS and Tyson. Because of that experience, I’ve watched in anger/horror as COVID-19 tears through these communities. In my view, the same indifference that Tyson and JBS show about joint and muscle injuries has been shown about COVID-19.

Skirting the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation

Part of my anger about COVID-19 in Lexington and Grand Island goes to the difficulty of recovering workers’ compensation benefits for COVID-19. Workers’ compensation laws provide little deterrent for packinghouses to limit COVID-19 exposure. Even if an employee can prove on the job exposure, workers can collect limited benefits from workers’ compensation. Workers’ compensation benefits are limited because employees are supposed to collect them without regard to fault.

Limited in benefits in exchange for not proving fault is at the heart of the so-called grand bargain of workers’ compensation. Workers compensation benefits are generally the exclusive remedy employees have for workplace injury and illnesses.

But a public nuisance claim skirts the problems with workers’ compensation laws. A public nuisance claim sues the packinghouses not for how they treat their workers, but for how their treatment of their workers effects the surrounding community. Exclusive remedy means that the workers can only sue their employers for a workplace injury or illness under workers’ compensation. Workers can only collect limited benefits from workers’ compensation.

Public nuisance is a legal theory that the packinghouses know well. Environmental advocates successfully used the tactic against a Smithfield subsidiary in North Carolina. I hope worker safety advocates obtain a good outcome in the Missouri case. I hope these suits spread to plants in other states.

Hard but not impossible: COVID-19 workers’ compensation claims

Posted on April 20, 2020 by Jon Rehm

An employee exposed to COVID-19 at work is likely limited to collecting workers’ compensation benefits. COVID-19 exposures are difficult workers’ compensation cases that have been made more difficult by guidance from the United States Department of Labor.

But difficult doesn’t mean impossible. Some COVID-19 exposures could lead to death, serious injury and or extensive medical expenses. Here is how I think workers should pursue workers’ compensation benefits for COVID-19 exposure

What kind of COVID-19 workers compensation claims are worth bringing

Nebraska awards substantial workers’ compensation benefits to the survivors of workers who die due to work-related causes. Severe but not fatal cases of COVID-19 that lead to hospitalization can lead to substantial medical expense. COVID-19 can also have permanently disabling effects. In Nebraska, loss of function from COVID-19 is paid on how the injury impacts a workers’ ability to earn a living.

While a mild case of COVID-19 probably wouldn’t justify bringing a workers’ compensation claim, COVID-19 symptoms may flare up in the future. So regardless of the severity of the COVID-19 exposure, it would make sense for a worker who thinks they got COVID-19 on the job to investigate how they may have gotten the virus.

Playing amateur detective

Most COVID-19 cases will likely be proved by circumstantial evidence. This means that workers should try to rule out non work-related exposure and rule in work-related exposure. This may be challenging because workers who are likely to exposed to COVID-19 on the job are also likely to have friends and family members who have been exposed to COVID-19 who could have exposed them to COVID-19 outside of work.

Workers who have been exposed to COVID-19, or their friends and family, need to do the leg work to gather the facts about possible COVID-19 exposure before memories fade and supporting documentation disappears.

Why you will probably need an attorney to pursue a COVID-19 workers’ compensation case

I believe insurers and employers will deny most COVID-19 workers’ compensation claims for two reasons. One, the cases are hard to prove. Two, many insurance policies apparently have virus exclusions. A lawyer can help a worker, or the family of a worker, exposed to COVID-19 gather facts to support their case.

In Nebraska, lawyers can subpoena documents from employers as well as serve written questions called interrogatories, requests for admissions and requests for production to help prove up a case for COVID-19 exposure on the job. Lawyers can also take depositions. I’ve written before how some employers will likely cover up and under report COVID-19 exposure. But in Nebraska employees should have the ability to obtain absence logs, occupational health records and other information outside of typical injury reports that could circumstantially prove COVID-19 exposure on the job.

I think lawyers pursuing workers’ compensation claim related to COVID-19 in Nebraska need to file petitions and serve discovery as soon as possible. COVID-19 claims will likely require more factual investigation than a typical workers’ compensation case.

Cooperation from co-workers and fear of retaliation

To some extent proving COVID-19 should be covered by workers’ compensation will probably require some cooperation from co-workers. Concerns about retaliation from an employer are legitimate. I’ve also criticized what I think are the weakness of retaliation laws recently. But Nebraska law outlaws retaliating against employees who claim workers compensation benefits. Does that protection extend to co-workers who assist in a workers’ compensation claim? I’m not sure, but recently a federal judge interpreting Nebraska’s workers’ compensation retaliation law held that the law provides broad protections.

Good facts also make good law. What that means is a co-worker who gets fired for helping a co-worker get workers’ compensation benefits may create law that formally extends the protections of workers’ compensation retaliation in Nebraska.

Though mainstream media has not widely reported this news, credible outlets like Payday Report and Law 360 have reported about widespread strikes and employee walkouts over COVID-19 safety related concners. So far, no walk outs have been reported in Nebraska. But supporting a co-worker in a workers’ compensation claim is an act of solidarity like a walk out or strike. The ability for workers to recover workers compensation benefits for COVID-19 exposure may require acts of solidarity.

How COVID-19 complicates workers’ compensation claims

Posted on April 6, 2020 by Jon Rehm

COVID-19 (coronavirus) is disrupting life for everyone. If you were hurt at work before the pandemic hit, your life has been disrupted doubly. Here are some ways how COVID-19 is complicating workers’ compensation cases for injured workers.

Delays in medical treatment

I’ve heard several reports that physical therapists and orthopedic doctors are limiting appointments and delaying procedures because of the virus. So even if an insurer or claims administrator has accepted your claim and approved treatment, you may have to wait for treatment.

Some of this delay may not be bad for workers if temporary disability benefits are being paid along with medical benefits. In 15 years of practice, I’ve seen employers and insurance companies force employees to return to work sooner and sooner. The delays in medical treatment created by COVID-19 may give some employees more time to heal from their injuries.

FMLA

But on the flip side, delays in medical care will likely force some employees to lose job protected under the Family Medical Leave Act. (FMLA) While FMLA protections were expanded under the CARES Act, those expanded protections don’t give any additional job protected leave to employees who were hurt on the job if it wasn’t related to COVID-19.

Undermining doctor choice

In Nebraska, employees have the right to pick their own doctor to treat their work injury. These doctors are often primary care doctors. Of course during a pandemic, it is harder for an injured worker to see a primary care doctor and have a primary care doctor fill out necessary paperwork for a workers’ compensation case.

Unscrupulous employers may use the unavailability of a family doctor to steer an injured worker to an employer-friendly occupational medicine clinic. This tactic pre-dates the coronavirus, but expect the pandemic to provide a new talking point for human resources and workers’ compensation bureaucrats to manipulate medical care in workers’ compensation cases.

The gears of the workers’ compensation bureaucratic complex have not stopped grinding during the pandemic. Genex, who contracts with insurance companies to micromanage medical care for injured workers, wrote a blog post last week heroically portraying one of their nurse case managers overcoming the resistance of a treating doctor and COVID-19 to return an employee back to work. (Assuming they had a job to return to in the first place.)

But if insurance companies and their minions can play the “corona card”, so can injured workers. Injured workers have the right to exclude nurse case managers from examination rooms. I would suggest injured workers’ ask nurse case managers to observe “social distancing” and stay out of cramped examination rooms.

Loss of health insurance in denied claims

Thanks to firms like Genex, many employers prematurely quit paying workers’ compensation benefits. This often forces employees to pay for medical treatment related to work injuries with their health insurance. But this plan could go awry if employees lose health insurance benefits due to a layoff.

Under the law, employers are supposed to continue health coverage under COBRA. Injured workers may also be able to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. But COBRA coverage is too expensive for most employees and even ACA coverage can be too costly for many. Employees should see if they are eligible for unemployment under the CARES Act. Employees could help pay for health insurance with the additional $600 per week unemployment benefit on top of regular weekly benefits and extended weekly benefits available under the CARES Act. But even with increased unemployment benefits, injured workers may have to make difficult financial decision about pursuing medical care.

Previous posts about coronavirus/COVID-19

“Navigating a workers’ compensation claim amid mass layoffs and economic uncertainty” – March 30, 2020

“What workers should know about coronavirus and workers’ compensation” – March 23, 2020

What workers should know about coronavirus and workers’ compensation

Posted on March 23, 2020 by Jon Rehm

According to NBC News, at least 20 percent of healthcare workers in Italy have been exposed to coronavirus. Health care workers in Nebraska may be at a similar level of risk. Workers in essential retailing, warehousing and delivery are probably also at heightened risk of catching coronavirus.

So, what do employees need to know to about coronavirus and workers’ compensation?

Reporting possible coronavirus exposures on the job

Coronavirus cases could be difficult workers’ compensation cases for reasons I will explain below. But these difficult cases will be even more difficult in Nebraska if workers fail to notify employers in a timely fashion if they believe they were exposed to the coronavirus. Nebraska courts recently made it easier for employers to dismiss workers’ compensation claims if employees delay notifying employers about potential work injuries. I believe these notice requirements could be even stricter for healthcare workers.

Protections against retaliation for reporting coronavirus exposure and treating for coronavirus

Employees may delay exposure to coronavirus is fear of retaliation. Fears about retaliation will likely be heightened due to fear of job loss in the teeth of mass layoffs and skyrocketing unemployment.

But employees who report possible coronavirus exposure or coronavirus related safety concerns on the job are protected by a variety of anti-retaliation laws that protect workers who claim workers’ compensation and report safety concerns. I’ve written before about the relative weakness of these laws. I believe workers’ will be better served if they can report safety concerns as a group rather than individuals.

A request for time off due to coronavirus or suspected coronavirus may also be covered under the Family Medical Leave Act and the emergency amendments to the Family Medical Leave Act enacted to deal with coronavirus pandemic. These laws also have anti-retaliation provisions.

Why coronavirus exposure would be difficult workers’ compensation claims

The reason why Coronavirus infections may not be covered goes to the fundamentals of proving the basics of a workers’ compensation case: did the infection arise out of and in the course and scope of employment?

In the course and scope of employment

Course and scope of employment goes to having the injury occur within the time and place of employment. Usually in the course and scope of employment is not a disputed issue. But in a case involving a corona virus infection, it may be difficult to prove whether an individual was infected on the job or not. This could be a time and resource consuming investigation for an employee. Public health officials may do some of this legwork, but that information may not be easily accessible due to confidentiality concerns.

Workers infected during business travel are presumed to be acting in the course and scope of employment under the “commercial traveler rule.” But merely catching coronavirus in the course and scope of employment isn’t enough just to have workers’ compensation cover coronavirus related medical expenses and lost wages.

Arising out of

An employee also needs to show that the infection was connected to some risk involved with employment. In other words, employees would have to prove some link between their work duties and their infection. In some cases this could be challenging and would also involve time and expense and in investigation.

Employees may be able to argue in some circumstances that their work increased the chances of them contracting coronavirus. Health care, delivery, warehousing and essential retail employees could have an easier time proving exposure. Unfortunately, in Nebraska there is no presumption of compensability (workers’ compensation coverage) if an injury took place on the job.

Other hurdles of potential Coronavirus workers’ compensation claimants

Coronavirus cases would likely involve more investigation than a typical workers’ compensation case. But many lawyers may not want to take these cases out of economic concerns. In Nebraska, a lawyer can’t be awarded a fee for representing a claimant in a disputed medical bills case. Attorneys can take fees on disability, but temporary disability could be short in a Coronavirus case. In Nebraska, unless a disability lasts more than six weeks and an employer can avoid paying the first week of disability.

Long-term solutions

Last week the president of WILG, a group of lawyers who represent injured workers, called on the insurance industry to make it easier for workers exposed to coronavirus on the job to claim benefits. I think this is a good idea. The difficulties in getting workers’ compensation for coronavirus indicate the need for stronger health insurance and paid leave benefits to cover employees who may not be able to rely on workers’ compensation.

Stay tuned to this blog about more information about coronavirus and his its impact on workers’ compensation and workplace law. You can also check out my podcast for more commentary.

No, you don’t need to burn your PTO to get workers’ compensation benefits.

Posted on March 16, 2020 by Jon Rehm

Employees do not need to exhaust paid time off (PTO) to receive workers’ compensation benefits in Nebraska. Employers in Nebraska must carry workers’ compensation insurance. But in Nebraska, employers aren’t required to pay PTO. Workers compensation pays out benefits whether you have paid leave or whether you have health insurance.

If you injure yourself at work and someone in management or HR tells you that you need to exhaust your paid leave before you collect workers’ compensation benefits, one of three things might be happening.

1. Someone at your company is misinformed about workers’ compensation.

2. Your employer is misleading you about how workers’ compensation works.

3. Maybe you misunderstood what you were told.

So why do some people think you need to exhaust paid leave before you receive workers’ compensation?

Short-term disability and exhaustion of leave

Many short-term disability policies require that employees exhaust paid leave before claiming short-term disability. My wife was required to burn her paid time off in order claim short-term disability during her maternity leave. White collar employers tend to have more short-term disability claims than workers compensation claims. (They tend to shift work injuries on to short and long-term disability, but that’s another story.) So a white collar HR department that lacks knowledge of workers compensation may, wrongly, assume that injured workers need to exhaust paid leave before receiving workers’ compensation.

The stigma of workers’ compensation

Employers who believe that employees need to burn paid time off before workers’ compensation benefits, may also believe this is necessary because they believe it should be necessary. Burning your paid time off before receiving workers’ compensation would be the same as paying a deductible before health insurance pays. Employers who think PTO should serve as a workers’ compensation deductible may believe that workers’ compensation and workers’ compensation claimants are illegitimate. Forcing employees to burn PTO before receiving workers’ compensation is one way to “hold employees accountable.”

Paying a quasi-deductible to receive workers’ compensation benefits is the cornerstone of a portable benefits scheme dreamed up by Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber. (Portable benefits are touted as a replacement for workers’ compensation —- particularly for gig economy workers. Bad portable plans shift the cost of work injuries onto injured workers.)

Misinformed or mislead: A distinction without a difference

I know some high-injury employers actively misinform employees about workers’ compensation. These employers may tell injured workers they need to use paid time off before they can collect workers’ compensation to discourage injured employees from taking time away from work. Employees may work through pain to avoid missing work and losing out on paid family leave and or paid vacation time.

Employee misunderstanding

Nebraska law requires a one-week delay period before an injured worker who is off work can collect temporary disability. If disability lasts longer than six weeks, the employer must pay that first week. . Some employees may take this statement to mean that they need to exhaust their paid leave or PTO to receive workers’ compensation. Many employees don’t want to take the chance of missing out on a week of pay Bluntly many employees may need to draw paid leave or PTO while they are waiting for workers’ compensation benefits to start.

Can you collect workers’ compensation for times you took PTO in Nebraska? Yes you can.

The Nebraska Court of Appeals ruled in Godsey v. Casey’s General Stores that an employee can collect temporary total disability for periods when they took PTO. The court reasoned that since paid leave was a benefit ready earned by the injured worker that an injured worker could collect workers compensation and PTO.

Does the decline of 24-hour retail mean a safer workplace?

Posted on March 9, 2020 by Jon Rehm

The Lincoln Williamsburg Hy-Vee, just north of our Lincoln office, joined other Hy-Vee stores in ending 24-hour operations

Hy-Vee Stores ended 24-hour operations in most of their stores throughout the Midwest . Did Hy-Vee’s move help workplace safety for their workers?

Maybe.

24-hour retail and workplace violence

Retail workers are increasingly subjected to violence on the job. Violence at stores increases during overnight hours and in stores where alcohol is sold. Some police departments believe 24-hour retail establishments are public safety risks. So by closing at midnight, Hy-Vee may be lowering the risk of injury from violence for their overnight employees.

However Hy-Vee failed to mention worker safety as a reason for ending 24 hour operations. (The reasons sound like a lot of corporate speak for reducing staff.) In my view, Hy-Vee deserves criticism for some workplace safety practices. I noticed Hy-Vee has implemented a light duty program where injured employees literally sit and/or stand and do nothing. In my experience, these programs are borderline abusive and usually force employees to return to work too soon.

Online shopping and the gig economy

Customer convenience drove the expansion of 24-hour retailing. But many shoppers skip the store all together for the convenience of online shopping and delivery.

Online retail has increased warehousing and delivery jobs that have safety risks of their own. Companies looking to save money contract out delivery to gig economy companies like Shipt and Door Dash Shipt and Door Dash classify their workers as contractors. These contractors lack employment protections like workers’ compensation. California recently enacted Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) to extend employment protections to gig economy workers. California codified the employee-friendly ABC test in AB5. New Jersey and New York are looking at following California’s lead by classifying gig economy workers as employees rather than independent contractors.

Gig economy workers in Nebraska

Nebraska lawmakers have remained silent on whether gig economy workers should be defined as employees or independent contractors. Our state’s workers’ compensation law uses a more employer-friendly “economic reality” test to decide whether a worker is an employee or contractor.

But even using the economic reality test, the Nebraska Supreme Court defined taxi drivers as employees rather than contractors for the purposes of workers compensation. Under that case law, I believe you can argue credibly that most gig economy employees should be deemed employees under the Nebraska Workers Compensation Act.

A PROblem with the PRO Act

Posted on March 2, 2020 by Jon Rehm

The House of Representatives passed the Protecting the Right to Organize or PRO Act last month. If the bill is enacted, it would make it much easier for workers to form unions.

The bill also used the worker-friendly ABC test to define employees under the National Labor Relations Act. (NLRA) The ABC test is the cornerstone of California’s Assembly Bill 5 which extends employment protections, including workers’ compensation, to gig economy workers.

I support the PRO Act. Our firm works with many unions on workers’ compensation claims. Union workplaces tend to be safer workplaces and unions give employees job security above and beyond what non-union employees have under the employment at-will doctrine.

But I don’t think the PRO Act went far enough. I believe the PRO Act should have applied the ABC test for the purposes of federal taxes like unemployment, Social Security and Medicare. I believe that for a few reasons.

One, more tax revenue to those programs would help maintain their solvency. Two, while states control who is an employee for the purposes of workers’ compensation, the fact that an employer pays taxes on an employee makes it more likely an employee will be defined as an employee. Federal tax laws can be a thumb on the scale for workers under state laws like workers’ compensation.

I think the PRO Act’s silence on Social Security and Medicare opens the door for mischief if it is enacted as drafted. Gig economy workers organized into a union without the benefit of basic social insurance programs may be forced to accept cut-rate “portable benefit” packages in lieu of standard mandated benefits like workers’ compensation. Poorly designed portable benefit plans can shift the cost of work injuries onto workers – particularly those are not covered under state workers’ compensation laws. The tech industry has collaborated with former SEIU President Andy Stern to support these types of weak portable benefit programs.

The PRO Act is DOA in the Senate. I think it is unlikely the President would sign the bill on the off-chance it did pass through the Senate. But there is an election coming up in November. It is well within the realm of reason that come next year there could be a Democratic president and a Democratic congress. Would Democrats enact something like the PRO Act if they had the opportunity next year or in 2022? It probably depends on who the Democratic president would be.

Workers' Compensation Watch

Published by Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm

Published by:

Tag Archives: Workers Compensation

Immunity by executive order probably isn’t constitutional, but beware of federal immunity for COVID-19 in workers’ compensation

Seeing the forest from the trees

Executive orders and Youngstown Sheet and Tube

Federal legislation and COVID-19 immunity

The 10^th Amendment and workers’ compensation

The 10^th Amendment and state quarantine orders

Holding meatpackers accountable for COVID-19 cases with public nuisance litigation

Skirting the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation

Hard but not impossible: COVID-19 workers’ compensation claims

How COVID-19 complicates workers’ compensation claims

What workers should know about coronavirus and workers’ compensation

No, you don’t need to burn your PTO to get workers’ compensation benefits.

Does the decline of 24-hour retail mean a safer workplace?

A PROblem with the PRO Act

Seeing the forest from the trees

Executive orders and Youngstown Sheet and Tube

Federal legislation and COVID-19 immunity

The 10th Amendment and workers’ compensation

The 10th Amendment and state quarantine orders

Share this:

Skirting the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

The 10^th Amendment and workers’ compensation

The 10^th Amendment and state quarantine orders