Category Archives: Legislation

Major Employer Questions Use Of Drug Formularies In Workers’ Compensation

Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

Drug formularies are touted as a way to fight prescription drug abuse and contain prescription drug cost. But one major Nebraska employer appears to be questioning whether drug formularies really contain prescription costs.

In a fiscal note for LB 408, a bill introduced in the Nebraska legislature to create drug formularies for opioid pain medications in workers’ compensation claims, the City of Omaha expressed concern that the inability to substitute for generic medication in a drug formulary could lead to higher prescription costs.

The City of Omaha was echoing widespread concerns about the possibility of conflict of interests in drug formularies. Those concerns were explained by me in a blog post published last December. In short, drug formularies are administered by pharmacy benefit managers. Pharmacy benefit managers make money by negotiating discounts from drug manufacturers. This gives pharmacy benefit managers incentive to put more expensive drugs on drug formularies because they can negotiate a more lucrative discount than they could for a less expensive generic drug.

LB 408 was held in committee by the Business and Labor committee so it is unlikely it will be considered in this legislative session. Opioids abuse is a topic of high interest for political leaders so drug formularies as a way to reduce opioid use will likely be discussed further in Nebraska.

The City of Omaha has a workforce this is more heavily unionized than most other workplaces in Nebraska.  In some instances, labor and management will collectively bargain how some aspects of a workers’ compensation program is to be administered. Supporters of organized labor originated the idea of “labor pluralism” during the New Deal and Post-War era. (4) Labor pluralism means that government should minimize interference between the labor-management relationship.   In a unionized workplace, labor and management have a complicated relationship that is both cooperative and confrontational depending on the circumstances. A mandate from the state requiring the use of drug formularies could be as undermining labor-management relations when a labor and management have bargained about the administration of workers’ compensation benefits.

Opioids And Doctor Choice

Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

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.

New York’s Newest Budget Shortchanges Injured Workers

Today’s post comes from guest author Catherine Stanton, from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.

A couple of weeks ago Governor Cuomo signed the New York State Budget that contained some potentially detrimental provisions for injured workers. Big business interests are taking their victory laps as they continue with their campaign to dismantle the Workers’ Compensation system by further reducing benefits to injured workers.  See this for what it is- a relentless attack on the working men and women of this state.

If you believe that the majority of those on Workers’ Compensation are frauds, faking an injury, or taking advantage of taxpayers, then you are probably content with the changes in the law. That also probably means you were swayed by the alternative facts that the Business Council was promulgating, including the proposition that Workers’ Compensation benefits are to blame for the high cost of doing business in New York and that many injured workers are not deserving of the benefits they receive.   

My colleague Len Jernigan from North Carolina issues an annual report of the top 10 Workers’ Compensation fraud cases. In 2016, those top 10 fraud claims were against employers – not workers – and totaled more than $400 million! Much of the fraud involved misclassification of employees in order to circumvent payroll taxes and Workers’ Compensation insurance. In fact, very few workers would voluntarily subject themselves to a system that has become so bloated by bureaucracy and is more concerned about precluding medical treatment because a form is not filled out correctly or penalizing counsel for being too overzealous by submitting numerous requests for their client’s day in court. 

Injured workers do not have much political clout. They do not get rich off of Workers’ Compensation benefits. Their weekly benefits can be reduced if they are considered partially disabled without regard to their socio economic status, their educational level or whether or not they are still being treated for their injuries.   Many of them who were union workers now are no longer able to pay union dues; some cannot pay for medical insurance for themselves or their families as Workers’ Compensation insurance only covers the injured worker for the injuries sustained on the job.

Workers’ Memorial Day takes place annually on April 28.  It is a day to remember those who have suffered and died on the job. Each year there are symposiums, panel discussions, acknowledgements, and speeches paying tribute to the men and women who have lost their lives at work. Many of our politicians will issue statements or attend rallies to stand in solidarity with workers’ groups. We will hear how their deaths should not be in vain and how we must make our workplaces safer. We will be saddened to hear the list of names of those who went off to work never to return.

Many of the politicians giving these speeches are the same politicians who voted to reduce benefits to injured workers in order to appease big business interests. It is difficult to comprehend the hypocrisy involved, but we are told this is politics as usual. While it may be too late regarding the further limitation for lost wages, there is still an opportunity to let the Governor know that any further reduction for permanent injuries to limbs is just not acceptable. While honoring those who died on the job is laudable, properly compensating those who have suffered permanent injuries is equally important and ensures that we value both the dead and the living.

Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717.

Trump Lifts His Middle Finger to Injured Workers

Today’s post comes from guest author Thomas Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.

It didn’t take long for Trump to deceive injured workers.  Despite campaign promises to help “middle class” workers,  Trump signed legislation relaxing the reporting requirements for employers when workers get hurt or ill due to their jobs.  Trump and the Republicans rolled back a rule issued by former President Barack Obama.  By ending the rule, Trump and Republicans effectively shortened the amount of time employers in dangerous industries have to keep accurate records of worker injuries – from five years to just six months.  The Republican-controlled Congress used a little-known legislative tool known as the Congressional Review Act to repeal the Obama regulation last month.  Democrats were incensed.  By signing the bill, Trump can legally prevent the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from requiring a similar rule in the future.

Labor leaders and workplace safety experts warn that the rollback of the OSHA recordkeeping rule will allow unscrupulous companies to cheat on their injury data and conceal ongoing hazards from OSHA regulators.  That concealment could make it harder for OSHA to identify recurring problems at certain employers and industries.  Debbie Berkowitz, a former OSHA policy adviser and advisor to the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group (WILG), now with the National Employment Law Project, indicated “This will give license to employers to keep fraudulent records and to willfully violate the law with impunity.” 

It was only a matter of time before Trump showed his disdain for injured workers and his true allegiance to business.

Dirty Tricks Lead To Reduced Benefits In Cuomo’s New Budget

Today’s post comes from guest author Catherine Stanton, from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.

Governor Cuomo signed a new budget this week. While many extolled his progressive agenda that included free college tuition for the middle class, renewing the millionaire’s tax, and giving a tax break on dues for union members, he also quietly and without much fanfare in the news media, struck a huge blow to injured workers. 

Unfortunately for those members of our society who no longer are able to work as a result of an injury, or sustained a life altering injury while on the job, their benefits became part of a horse-trade in Albany much to their detriment. Governor Cuomo, anxious to get his big publicity items in the budget in case he seeks higher office, seems to have used Workers’ Compensation as a bargaining chip. 

The Business Council circulated fake facts blaming injured workers’ benefits for the high cost of doing business in the state, when in reality employer costs nationwide for Workers’ Compensation are at their lowest levels in 35 years.  Locally, Workers’ Compensation costs in New York have declined dramatically as well; compensation is only a small portion of employer costs and is extremely profitable for insurers. The Business Council seems to have a number of members with strong ties to the insurance industry, which makes their position even further suspect.

In 2007, the Council was successful in lobbying to obtain caps on indemnity benefits and has now continued its assault so that the prior limit on weekly benefits will be further reduced. When caps were first put into place, they did not go into effect until judges determined that injured workers had reached maximum medical improvement and that their conditions could be classified as permanent. This new provision automatically starts the cap after 2½ years, regardless of a person’s abilities or condition, or whether or not he will ever be able to work again or find work that meets medical restrictions. It is up to the injured worker to show that he has not reached maximum medical treatment that the carrier can refute.  

The Business Council has continued its attack by alleging that permanent loss-of-use awards were unfair to the employer. They argue that the prior guidelines were outdated and did not take into consideration new advances in medicine. Again, fake facts! The guidelines are based on range of motion and loss of function after all modalities are exhausted, including new advances in medicine available. As a result, the new law directs the Board to “consult” with a group stacked with pro business and insurance interests, but no representatives of injured workers to “review” the current guidelines with the ultimate goal of reducing benefits. The fact that workers who have permanent life-altering injuries to their arms, legs, hands, feet, fingers, and toes have absolutely no say is extremely distressing.

When does this eroding away of Workers’ Compensation benefits end? Two years ago, ProPublica published a series of articles entitled “The Demolition of Workers’ Comp”.  They documented the cutbacks made in many states with disastrous consequences. Their report noted that since 2003, 33 states passed Workers’ Compensation laws that reduce benefits or make it more difficult to obtain benefits. New York is part of that list, having enacted laws not once, but twice, since then.

Many believe that reducing benefits to injured workers will force them back to work. Studies have shown that this is another myth perpetuated by the falsehood that injured workers are frauds. What happens in reality is that many injured workers are unable to work and are forced into poverty or have to collect alternate benefits. Social Security Disability benefits, which are paid by the American taxpayers, are generally offset by Workers’ Compensation benefits. Without Workers’ Compensation payable by the insurance carrier, the burden on the taxpayer is larger. Rather than the Workers’ Compensation insurance carrier paying for medical treatment, it is put through Medicare. This is known as cost shifting and it affects all of us, as we are the ones who end up paying – and paying dearly.

 

Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717.

MORE changes to Work Comp: Elimination of Court Reporters & Appeals Commission?

Budget Bill Proposes Eliminating Court Reporters

Today’s post comes from guest author Charlie Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.

Wisconsin’s Governor recently proposed significant changes to Wisconsin’s best-in-nation worker’s compensation system.  For the second budget cycle in a row, the Governor’s Budget Bill wants to drastically change the structure of worker’s compensation cases.  

The Budget Bill, revealed on February 8, 2017, proposes two main changes : (1) the elimination of court reporters in litigated worker’s compensation trials; and (2) the elimination of the independent body that reviews judge decisions.  

A base level concern exists, again, because these proposals were made outside the stabilizing force of the Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation Advisory Council.   As mentioned at length in this forum, the Advisory Council, with its balanced membership of labor and management representatives, has produced reasoned, incremental changes historically–creating a beneficial system for all stakeholders.  Hopefully the Advisory Council will weigh in on the potential effects of the unveiled Budget Bill proposals.

Each of the proposals significantly impact the state’s work comp system:

Elimination of Court Reporters:

The Budget proposes eliminating the use of statutorily-required stenographic court reporters in worker’s compensation trials.  The specific proposal is to eliminate necessary court reporters (who ensure decorum in the court room, properly manage exhibits, make sure parties do not talk over each other, and create an accurate and legitimate transcript) in exchange for some type of ill-defined audio recording equipment.

Employers and carriers in our state—facing six to seven figure exposures—will have concerns about facing such liability based on questionable audio technology.  Imagine if at a critical point in trial, a witness talks to softly or inaudibly, resulting in a blank area in the transcript.  No stakeholder wants this, and our live court reporters ensure that it does not.  

Also, the circuit court (and further appellate courts) want an accurate, undisputed transcript of the lower trial proceedings.   If the audio is poor, unclear or inaccurate, we may be forced to re-litigate the trial.  A redo will increase system costs.  Further, if court reporters are eliminated, the private parties will bear the costs by hiring their own court reporters.  We then may face disputes about the “real” transcript between the state’s audio recording (which will need to be transcribed for appeals) and the privately-hired court reporter transcript.  

Wisconsin is not alone in its use of court reporters in worker’s compensation trials, as an informal poll revealed the use of court reporters in IN, PA, CT, IA, NC, MT, NE, WY, SC, CA, MA, GA, KS, IL, LA, NY, WA…and the list goes on.

Near universal opposition exists to this unnecessary proposal to eliminate live court reporters.  The State Bar litigation section board voted unanimously to oppose this proposal.  Moreover, all of the three main groups of attorneys that represent clients in worker’s compensation proceedings oppose this proposal.   The Wisconsin Defense Counsel (defense attorneys), the Wisconsin Association of Justice (injured worker attorneys), and the Wisconsin Association of Workers’ Compensation Attorneys (bi-partisan group) jointly drafted a letter to the Governor voicing their opposition.    

All parties to litigation want a fair and accurate depiction of the trial proceedings, and court reporters help secure that justice.  This proposal faces stiff opposition.

Elimination of the Appeals Commission

Traditionally, the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) is an independent body of three political appointees that rule on worker’s compensation, unemployment, and equal rights appeals.  The cases are litigated in front of administrative law judges and then the appeal is to LIRC, who have a virtual de novo review.  The appeal from LIRC is direct to circuit court, which has a very deferential standard and will uphold the LIRC decision if there is any “credible and substantial evidence.”  Barring a legal issue, the circuit court upholds the factual and credibility findings of LIRC.  

LIRC has been in existence in some form since the inception of the worker’s compensation act in 1911.  LIRC actually serves to define much of the worker’s compensation case law—for over one hundred years.  When I look at our treatise, I’d guess 80% of the cited cases are LIRC cases.  Judges use the LIRC decisions in making determinations.

The current Budget proposal is the complete elimination of LIRC.  However, as opposed to a direct appeal from a judge determination to circuit court, the proposal is to substitute the Division Administrator for LIRC.  Thus, litigants would trial cases to the administrative law judge, with an appeal to the state Division of Hearings and Appeals Administrator (currently Brian Hayes) as the intermediate level of appeal.  Appeal from the Administrator’s decision would be to circuit court–with no apparent change in the standard of review by circuit court.

The upshot is to give much authority and discretion back to the actual administrative law judges–the ones who actually observed the witness and heard the evidence.  One of the statutory proposals indicates that the “findings of fact” by the judge “shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive.” That appears to give even less discretion to the Administrator’s ability to review judge decisions.

There is much ambiguity about the reasoning behind these proposals, as well as the potential impact.  I’ve already heard from a number of individuals that the proposal comes from issues within the unemployment insurance arena (and unemployment appeals fill up the majority of LIRC’s docket).  If true, worker’s compensation appeals are being swept up with the issues within unemployment.

However, if implemented, the practical effects are drastic.  Presumably, the Division Administrator would likely be more deferential to the sitting administrative law judges (i.e., approve more ALJ decisions) and probably produce a faster appeal turnaround time than the current LIRC process.   The catch is that it remains unknown how the Adminstrator would handle the influx of worker’s compensation appeals. Would there need to be additional staff?  (if so, budgetary costs need to be considered).  If no new staff, the simple time constraints lead to the likelihood of rubberstamping judge determinations.   

In the future though, the Administrator position changes.  Future appointees could have their own political proclivities that could impact the system.  Also, the proposal may have just eliminated 100 years of case law as guidance for future judicial determinations.  The budget is devoid of what happens to the precedential value of past LIRC decisions.  

Accordingly, further details really need to be revealed about the proposed plan before the stakeholders can weigh in.

One further item is known, based on the intersection of the two proposals.  If the system eliminates LIRC and provides more deference to the underlying judge determination, the value of court reporters increases exponentially.  If the judge factual determination is conclusive, a reviewing circuit court certainly wants an accurate, credible, and decipherable transript of those all-important findings.  

We will explore the further Budget process and these proposals as they progress…

For further information:

The full statutory text of the Budget Bill (2017 Assembly Bill 64/ 2017 Senate Bill 30) can be found here, with a summary found here.

Why Due Process Matters in Workers’ Compensation

Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

Two recent decisions from the state supreme courts in Oklahoma and Florida point out that how an injured worker gets workers’ compensation benefits is as important as how much an employee can receive in benefits for a work injury. In the parlance of constitutional law, the how a worker receives benefits is a termed “due process.”

Oklahoma – In Vasquez v. Dillard’s, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found the so-called “Oklahoma option” violated the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution. The Oklahoma option allowed employers to create their own workers’ compensation benefit plans under the Oklahoma Employee Injury Benefit Act (OEIBA) so long as they offered the same benefits as under the state workers’ compensation program. The problem that the Oklahoma Supreme Court had with “Oklahoma option” was that employers were allowed to design plans with procedures that made it more difficult for injured workers to collect benefits than if they were in the state system. In essence, the Oklahoma State Legislature had created separate but unequal workers’ compensation systems for employees injured on the job in that state, which was a violation of the equal-protection clause of the state constitution. But the deeper reason why the Oklahoma option was overturned was that it denied due process to workers who were covered under the OEIBA.

Florida – In Castellanos v. Next Door Company, the Florida Supreme Court struck down attorney fee limits in workers’ compensation cases on due process grounds under the U.S. and Florida constitutions. The Florida court found that fee caps deterred employees from bringing claims because they would be unable to find attorneys. The court also found that fee caps encouraged employers to wrongfully deny claims because workers would be unable to find lawyers to challenge denied claims. Though Castellanos wasn’t an equal protection case like Vasquez, the Florida court pointed out that employers faced no limits on how much they paid their attorneys. Fee caps for employees only created a situation where employees and employers had unequal protections under Florida’s workers’ compensation law.

Vasquez and Castellanos challenged and overturned state laws. But there are other ways for employees to challenge unfair denials of workers’ compensation benefits besides overturning state laws. In the Brown v. Cassens Transportation cases, a group of injured workers in Michigan used a civil RICO statute (anti-racketeering law) to challenge how their employer, the employer’s claims administrator, and a defense medical examiner worked together to undermine their workers’ compensation claims. In Brown, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that since employees gave up their right to a tort suit under Michigan law to receive certain workers’ compensation benefits, injured workers had a constitutionally protected property interest in both the receipt of workers’ compensation benefits and their claims for workers’ compensation benefits and that employer had conspired unlawfully to deny those benefits.

The court in Brown also recognized that workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries in Michigan, which is another reason why workers’ compensation benefits were constitutionally protected. The state supreme courts in Florida and Oklahoma also cited the exclusive remedy provisions of their state workers’ compensation acts to support their findings that state laws violated due process and equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitution.

Removing The Safety Net: A National Trend Of Benefit Reductions For Injured Workers

Today’s post comes from guest author Catherine Stanton, from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.

Benefits for injured workers continue to be under attack throughout the country. In New York, there have been a number of changes in the last decade, all in the name of reform. These reforms were encouraging at first as they increased the weekly benefits for some higher wage-earning injured workers for the first time in decades. They also created medical treatment guidelines under the guise of allowing injured workers to obtain pre-approval on certain medical treatments and procedures. 

Unfortunately, the changes also resulted in reduction of benefits for many injured workers. Monetary benefits were capped, so injured workers deemed partially disabled could only receive a certain number of weeks of benefits regardless of their ability to return to their pre-injury jobs. The determination of the degree of disability has become a battle involving multiple, lengthy depositions of medical witnesses where the outcome is how long injured workers get wage replacement or whether they receive lifetime benefits. The criteria is not whether injured workers can return to their prior employment, but whether they are capable of performing any work at all, regardless of their past job experience or education. The battle is not limited to the amount of weeks of benefits injured workers can receive, however. The medical treatment guidelines, touted as getting injured workers prompt medical treatment, discounts the fact that if the requested treatment is not listed within the guidelines, it is denied and the burden is placed upon injured workers and their treating doctors to prove the requested treatment is necessary.

Other changes designed to cut administrative costs and court personnel include reducing the number of hearings held, thereby denying injured workers due process. There also has been a reduction in the number of presiding judges, and in many hearing locations the judges are not even at the site but are conducting hearings through video conferencing. At the end of October, the Board announced a new procedure authorizing the insurance carrier to request a hearing on whether injured workers should be weaned off of opioids that are used by many medical providers to treat chronic pain. While everyone would agree that the misuse of prescription pain medication is an epidemic in this country, many question whether the insurance industry really has the injured workers’ best interest at heart.    

As an attorney who has represented injured workers for more than 26 years, I have seen many workers successfully transition from injured worker back into the labor market. It is very encouraging to note that for many people the system has worked. They receive their treatment, which may involve physical therapy, surgery, pain management, prescription therapy, or whatever else their treating physician recommends. They are paid a portion of their prior income and after a period of convalescence, they are able to return to work. Some injured workers, however, are not so lucky. The decisions about what happens to those unable to work have been left to those who seem to care more about business and insurance industry profits. 

Just about one year ago, 14 people were killed and 22 more injured when ISIS-inspired terrorists went on a shooting rampage in San Bernardino, California. The nation and the world were horrified to hear about this tragedy and the story was in the news for many weeks. Now a year has gone by and many of the survivors have complained about treatment being denied and prescription medication being cut off.  While many injuries happen quietly without the headlines seen in the California attack, there are many similarities. It seems that when an initial injury occurs, there are many good protections and benefits in place. However, as time goes on and costs increase, injured workers are looked upon as enemies to defeat or to forget about. Unfortunately for injured workers and their families, they don’t have this luxury and they don’t have the means to fight.

Most people don’t think it will ever happen to them. That is what most of my clients have thought as well.

 

Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717.