Senator Dan Quick has introduced employee-friendly legislation
Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.
Last weekend’s Big 10 Conference football championship game between Ohio State and Wisconsin contained some off-the-field controversy when former Wisconsin Badger and current Cleveland Browns player, Joe Thomas, criticized the fact that Ohio State starting quarterback J.T. Barrett was playing in the game six days after arthroscopic knee surgery.
While Barrett lead the Buckeyes to victory with 211 passing yards and 60 rushing yards, Thomas argued that college players should have the option of a second opinion when it comes to major surgeries like players do in the NFL. Thomas argued that team doctors are overly influenced by coaches who want players to return to action as soon as possible and that college players are over eager to return to the field.
A similar issue will be debated in Nebraska’s legislature next month. Senator Dan Quick of Grand Island has a bill on the floor that would require an employer to pay for a second opinion if an employee disputes a finding from a doctor paid for by the employer. Quick’s bill was inspired by his experience of being sent back to work prematurely by a doctor chosen by his employer’s workers compensation insurer.
Quick is an electrician by trade and is one of the few blue-collar workers who serves in the Nebraska Legislature. Another blue-collar worker, Lee Carter, was recently elected to the legislature in Virginia. Like Quick, Carter had a bad experience after a work injury. Carter had his hours reduced after his accident and was unable to find a lawyer because of confusion over which state had jurisdiction over his work injury.
Blue collar workers running for office may be a trend as iron worker Randy Bryce is running for Congress against House Speaker Paul Ryan and Wisconsin Firefighter’s union president Mahlon Mitchell is running for Governor of Wisconsin. I am encouraged that people like Dan Quick and Lee Carter have taken their bad experiences after work injuries and have gone into politics to directly address the problems they faced first hand and make sure other workers will have better experiences if they get hurt on the job.
Today’s post comes from guest author Kristina Brown Thompson, from The Jernigan Law Firm.
Super Bowl 50 what a game! As a Panthers’ fan, it was depressing to see our usually high-scoring offense crushed by the Broncos’ defense. However, the Panthers’ defense kept us in the game until the bitter end. The dedication of Thomas Davis, a Panthers’ linebacker, was quite a site. Davis, who sustained a broken forearm in an earlier game, played through Super Bowl 50 with a surgically implanted plate and 11 screws in his right forearm. Davis shared a post-surgical photo after the Super Bowl on social media. In his post, Davis said:
This post is not about me, or how tough I am. It’s not to shine any light on me or my injuries. Our team doctors and trainers did an amazing job giving me an opportunity to get back on the field. This post is strictly to show how much love I have for my brothers and #PantherNation. Thank you all for your support and we will #KeepPounding.-TD
Take a look at the photo (if you’re not too squeamish) and you will be amazed that Davis played through the Super Bowl with over 20 stitches. Clearly, Davis is a strong individual. His decision to join the game, despite his injuries, was not taken lightly and was made with the consultation of his treating physicians.
Like Davis, many injured workers are extremely eager to return to work. Whenever possible, and medically acceptable, returning to work is the best option for the injured worker and the employer. However, the decision to return to work after an injury must be carefully evaluated. All too frequently, our firm receives calls from injured workers who prematurely rush back to work only to find out they can’t perform their old job duties. Sadly, their employer, although understanding at first, becomes frustrated with the injured worker’s physical constraints and the injured worker is terminated. Under these circumstances, the injured worker may have an additional cause of action (retaliatory discharge claim) but the end result could have been avoided if they monitored their recovery carefully and focused on healing before returning to work.