Today’s post comes from guest author Rod Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.
Nebraska, known for its conservative views, is considering legalization of medical marijuana. Sen. Tommy Garrett writes a passionate, persuasive and practical letter to constituents in support of medical marijuana.
“Bottom line up front: The Cannabis Compassion and Care Act (LB643) is all about making life better for Nebraskans who are sick and ailing. Period! Nothing more … nothing less. This is entirely about helping very sick people in need who deserve the right to a medication that treats their illnesses.” Sen. Tommy Garrett
Sen. Garrett is a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and a registered Republican, and his views may surprise some people. He deserves credit for his advocacy on this issue.
Relief from chronic pain is one use for medical marijuana. Chronic pain is an all-too-common problem for injured people. Current treatment patterns with strong opiates have reached crisis status.
The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 23 states, the District of Columbia and Guam now allow medical marijuana. It seems now is a good time to study and consider adding marijuana as an alternative to the very dangerous opioids.
Sen. Garrett put it this way.
“While Washington may be broken, Nebraska is not. States have rights and I trust that the decision makers here in Lincoln will join me in looking at the research and see that cannabis has demonstrated effectiveness in treating cancer, ALS, MS, Dravet’s syndrome and other terminal and debilitating illnesses. I’m doing this because stuff needs fixing.”
Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.
“Calling a dog’s tail a leg does not make it a leg.” Abraham Lincoln
FedEx drivers recently won two class-action lawsuits in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled that FedEx wrongfully withheld overtime pay, Social Security, unemployment, Medicare and other benefits to drivers because they were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees. The decisions were driven by the fact that FedEx exercised control over the appearance of drivers as well as what packages to deliver, on what days, and at what times.
Though the FedEx decision only applies to Oregon and California, it is very possible that a similar decision would have been made under Nebraska law. Under the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act as well as under the Employment Security Law, Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-601 et al., there is a five-part test as to whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee.
- Individual is free from control or direction under contract of hire
- Individual is free from control or direction as a matter of fact
- Service is outside the usual course of business for which service is performed
- Such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise which such service is performed
- Individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, business or profession.
Nebraska law creates a presumption of an employer-employee relationship. Tracy v. Tracy, 581 N.W. 2d 96, 7 Neb. App. 143 (Neb. Court of Appeals, 1998) In short, if you can answer most of those questions “no,” you are very likely an employee rather than an independent contractor. The mere fact that you may have signed a documents stating you are independent contractor does not necessarily mean you are an independent contractor.
In addition to protections under federal law, asking questions about your employment status is also a protected activity under Nebraska law. Being misclassified as an independent contractor could cost you thousands of dollars in wages and benefits. However, you have the ability to fight back if you are being misclassified.
Today’s post comes from guest author Brody Ockander, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.
In the past, I have warned about the possible pitfalls of social media on a workers’ compensation claim.
However, the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court has never really ruled on Facebook in the context of discovery matters in a work comp claim, meaning how much access can your employer have to your Facebook account if you file a workers’ compensation claim?
Recently, however, the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court (at least one judge) has taken the position that in order for your employer to gain access to photographs from your Facebook profile, it must “make a showing of the necessary factual predicate underlying [the] broad request for access.” In other words, your employer must have a decent reason to suspect that a certain photograph or something from your Facebook account has the potential to be relevant to the work comp case before the court will simply grant full access to your Facebook account to your employer.
Therefore, depending on your situation, your Facebook may be safe from your employer to some degree. However, this is a cautionary tale to remind you that even though your employer cannot simply have blanket access to all of your Facebook photos – at least according to one Nebraska judge – it does not mean that your Facebook photos or posts are necessarily safe from your employer gaining access to them at some point during your work comp case. I think the judge in this case takes a step in right direction, but you still must be aware that anything you put on Facebook may be subject to discovery (i.e., your employer may still possibly get access to it) at some point in the future.
Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.
Nebraska is a state that has a “prompt payment rule” for medical expenses in workers’ compensation cases. This means that so long as your employer has sufficient knowledge that your medical care is necessary because of the injury, your bills should be paid. This is a huge plus because even a minor workers’ compensation injury can cause an employee to rack up thousands of dollars in medical bills.
In Nebraska, delay of medical payment is treated as a denial of a claim. That is why a delay in paying for medical bills from a work injury gives the employee the right to pick their own doctor for a work injury.
The issue of doctor choice brings up a couple of the hidden dangers of the prompt payment rule. Many times, employers will promptly pay medical expenses for doctors who will oftentimes release employees before they are done healing and return employees back to work before they are ready. Employees need to be able to know their doctor-choice rights before they agree to an employer/insurer-oriented clinic or doctor – especially if that doctor is not their family doctor. link know their doctor choice rights to title Physician choice crucial to work comp claimants )
Secondly, employees can get lulled into contentment when an employer pays their medical bills. Medical benefits are one aspect of workers’ compensation benefits; the other is loss of income benefits. An employer/insurer may use their leverage with a doctor to minimize loss of income benefits. Also, when employees get into litigation, they are oftentimes confused by the fact that an employer will pay for medical benefits, but not loss of income benefits, or will deny that the injury is even work related. This is related to the prompt payment rule. Just because an employer pays medical bills, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they or a workers’ compensation judge will believe those medical bills are related to the work accident.