Author Archives: Leonard Jernigan

The Wages of Jobs Being Added

Today’s post was shared by US Labor Department and comes from

There has been a lot of discussion recently about whether job growth in the U.S. labor market has been concentrated in low-wage jobs, middle-wage, and/or high-wage jobs. To get at the answer, let’s look at how the distribution of wages has changed over time, starting with the Great Recession.

Job losses during the Great Recession were profound, but they were not felt equally across the wage distribution. Figure A shows the average monthly change in employment between 2007 and 2009 by wage level. The blue bars show the actual change in employment by wage level, and the purple line is a benchmark showing what the employment loss would have been at each wage level if job loss had been evenly distributed.* Notably, this means the purple line is a reflection of the 2007 wage distribution. In 2007, around half of workers earned $17 or less per hour, so it might be expected that around half of jobs lost would be lost by workers who earned $17 or less per hour. But Figure A shows that workers who earn $17 or less per hour made up a disproportionately high share of the losses, since most of the blue bars for those wages extend far below the purple line. In particular, very low-wage jobs — in this case jobs that pay $10 per hour or less – saw strongly disproportionate job loss , as did lower-middle-wage jobs — in this case, jobs that pay $13-$16 per hour. On the other hand, very high-wage jobs – jobs that pay around $50 per hour or more – saw job

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Call “Reform” What It Is: Death By A Thousand Cuts For Workers’ Rights

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

This week I attended the 20th anniversary of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group (WILG) in Chicago. I am a proud past president of this group – the only national Workers’ Compensation bar association dedicated to representing injured workers.  

As an attorney who has represented injured workers for more than 25 years, I have seen their rights and benefits shrink under the guise of “reform”. After the tragic Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in 1911, which killed almost 150 women and girls, workplace safety and Workers’ Compensation laws were enacted. For the next half century or so, many protections and safeguards were implemented. However, many of these reforms were not sufficient, and in 1972, the National Commission on State Workmen’s Compensation Laws, appointed by then-President Nixon, issued a report noting that state Workers’ Compensation laws were neither adequate nor equitable. This led to a decade when most states significantly improved their laws. 

Unfortunately, there has once more been a steady decline in benefits to injured workers, again under the guise of reform. One major argument is that many workers are faking their injuries or they just want to take time off from work. There was even a recent ad campaign in which a young girl was crying because her father was going to jail for faking an injury. Workers’ Compensation fraud does exist, but the high cost of insurance fraud is not as a result of workers committing fraud.

A colleague of mine compiled a list of the top 10 Workers’ Compensation fraud cases in 2014 in which he noted that the top 10 claims of fraud cost taxpayers well more than $75 million dollars with $450,000 of the total amount resulting from a worker committing insurance fraud. That leaves $74.8 million as a result of non-employee fraud, including overbilling and misclassification of workers. We are told that insurance costs are too high; yet, according to the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) in 2014, estimates show that private Workers’ Compensation carriers will have pulled in $39.3 billion in written premiums, the highest since they began keeping data in 1990. More premiums result in higher net profits. Despite this, many states have implemented changes in their Workers’ Compensation systems aimed at reducing costs to the employer. The end results, however, is that fewer benefits are given to the injured worker and more profits go to the insurance companies.

In New York, one of the reform measures increased the amount of money per week to injured workers but limited the amount of weeks they can receive these benefits with the idea that they will return to work once their benefits run out. Additionally, limitations have been placed on the amount and types of treatment that injured workers may receive. Again, this is with the notion that once treatment ends, injured workers miraculously are healed and will not need additional treatment. In reality, those injured who can’t return to work receive benefits from other sources from state and federal governments at the taxpayer’s expense.  This is what is known as cost shifting, as those really responsible to pay for benefits – the insurance companies who collect the premiums from the employers – have no further liability. The reformers of 100 years ago would be appalled at what is happening to injured workers and their families today. It is time that those who are generating profits at the expense of injured workers do what is fair and just – provide prompt medical care and wage replacement to injured workers for as long as they are unable to work.

To stay on top of important Workers’ Compensation happenings, please visit the Facebook page of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP and “Like Us.” That way you will receive the latest news on your daily feed.



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.


OSHA Fines Nebraska Railcar Almost $1 Million after Explosion

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

The incident referred to in this article was extremely tragic, as two workers were killed in April. Now OSHA has found that Nebraska Railcar Cleaning Services knew “that moments before the blast, an air quality check indicated a serious risk of an explosion. OSHA says that despite the warning, Nebraska Railcar Cleaning Services sent two employees into the railcar to work without monitoring the air continuously for explosive hazards as required, nor providing the employees with emergency retrieval equipment or properly fitted respirators.”

Sympathies continue to go to the loved ones of both Dallas Foulk and Adrian LaPour.

Nebraska Railcar Cleaning Services has been placed in OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program and fined $963,000 for “seven egregious willful, three willful, two repeated, 20 serious, and one other than serious safety and health violations.”

In addition, the article said the EPA is doing an investigation regarding the company’s hazardous-waste disposal.

For those who argue that businesses have safety and the best interests of their workers in mind, please read the article linked to above, and really think about that philosophy, especially when an explosion led to workers dying. Then read the quote from the article below and ask yourself about workplace safety again.

“This company has regularly failed to use appropriate equipment and procedures to keep their employees safe, and in this case it had tragic consequences,” Jeff Funke, OSHA Area Director in Omaha, said in a written statement. “The company needs to immediately reevaluate its procedures for entering and cleaning railcars.”

Work Comp Fraud? What Fraud?

Despite what the media portray, workers’ comp fraud is extremely rare.

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

Workers are not “getting rich” from worker’s compensation! Accordingly, fraudulent behavior in work comp is very rare—like the one bad apple spoiling the bunch—but often highly publicized. (Because, let’s face it, seeing a surveillance video of someone bowling or water-skiing is far more memorable than a thousand images of an injured worker struggling to get out of bed in the morning or walk a city block).

Under Wisconsin’s nationally-recognized model, a worker who suffers an on-the-job-injury receives workers’ compensation benefits without regard to fault. By virtue of the work comp system, injured workers cannot sue their employers or receive jury awards. Instead, injured workers are eligible for lower, defined benefits, like lost wages and medical expenses—again, we’re not talking about “pie in the sky” numbers that would incentivize bad behavior!

“Fraud” is minimal to non-existent

  • In the last published study, Dept. of Workforce Development (DWD) concluded that public perception of workers’ compensation fraud is exaggerated. In a six year span, the amount of prosecuted fraud was less than one in 20,000 work injuries…or 0.0001%.1

Industry insiders don’t think this is a big deal

  • Rick Parks, the President/CEO of Society Insurance: “From the view of thousands of claims over decades, fraud is minimal in Wisconsin”2 
  • Chris Reader of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce: despite the “sensational stories,” fraud is “few and far between” in the system.3

Current law already allows criminal prosecution for alleged “fraud”

  • Worker’s Compensation Division already has an existing fraud hotline for the public. Also, a carrier can report an alleged fraudulent claim to the DWD. After an investigation, DWD can refer to district attorney for prosecution of criminal insurance fraud. Thus, if there is fraudulent behavior, under current law, there can be a crime found.

Independent Medical Examinations provide protection against “fraud”

  • Insurance carriers can require an injured worker to be seen by a handpicked independent medical examiner, or IME. If questions exist about a worker’s injury, symptoms, or disability, the IME can provide an opinion—allowing a carrier to deny the worker’s claim.

“Fraud” goes both ways

  • We want fair competition in the marketplace and in business. Misclassifying employees or workplaces results in “stolen” premium dollars and an unfair business advantage. Likewise, limiting or under-reporting work injuries undermines the fairness and credibility of our efficient work comp ratings process and system.



1 Department of Workforce Development, Annual Report for Calendar Year 1999 Allegations of Worker’s Compensation Fraud (annual average of 3 prosecuted cases out of 60,000 injuries).

2 Senate and Assembly Committees on Labor, Informational Meeting, 7/31/13: WisconsinEye at 3:18:30.

3 Senate and Assembly Committees on Labor, Informational Meeting, 7/31/13: WisconsinEye at 2:13:00.

Why I Am Thankful – Two Photographs

Recently I took photographs of two men who remind me of why I am thankful every day. One man is sitting in a wheelchair at a restaurant, with his right hand in a contorted position and he is being fed by another person. The other man, also in a restaurant, is in shorts and is holding a small child in his arms.  But something is missing – his right leg – he has a flesh colored prosthetic device as a substitute.

photo for LTJ blog 2 10.9.15 copyI have spent a lifetime helping disabled people and I have never heard any of them say “You know, Mr. Jernigan, when I got up to go to work that day, I knew I was going to be severely injured and my life would change forever.” We never know when life will take a turn like that. We never know when we will lose our independence and sometimes our dignity. Fortunately, that day will never come for most of us. But it could.

When I think about the man in the wheelchair and the man holding his child, I think how lucky I am, and I am thankful each and every day.

We Need More People Like The Wright Brothers

Leonard Jernigan & Betsy Jernigan with David McCullough

My wife and I recently attended a presentation in Raleigh, N.C. by David McCullough, the Pulitzer Prize winning author and narrator of Ken Burns’ The Civil War, about his most recent book, The Wright Brothers. He explained that although neither Wilbur nor Orville had a college degree they were nevertheless well-read, intelligent, and extremely disciplined. They were also confident and did not let criticism get in their way.

Although they valued privacy they eventually became two of the most famous people in the world. They were thrown into a glamorous crowd as they demonstrated the ability to fly their plane in Paris, London and New York, and as they walked among the wealthy they commented that never in their lives “had they been among so many who, by all signs, had little to do but amuse themselves.”  

Wilbur died of typhoid fever in 1917 when he was just 45 years old. In 1932 (28 years after the original 1903 flight) Orville attended the ceremony in Kitty Hawk, N.C. that dedicated the impressive Wright Memorial. He died of a heart attack in 1948 at age 77, and approximately 25,000 people passed by his coffin out of respect. Both men were wealthy when they died and Orville had an estate worth about $10 million in today’s dollars, although wealth was never a motivating factor for them. They followed the wisdom of their father who said: “All the money anyone needs is just enough to prevent one from being a burden to others.” David McCullough’s book speaks volumes about their character, and leaves the reader wondering where such men are today.   

For more information go to

Recovering From A Torn Ligament: The Story of Tommy John

A sports agent called me recently about a baseball player who was about to have “Tommy John surgery” and asked whether it would be covered under workers’ compensation. I had heard about this surgery for years but never knew much about it, so I asked Elayna Slocum, a paralegal in my office, to do some research.

Tommy John was a professional pitcher for the Los Angeles Dodgers who, in 1974, damaged his ulnar collateral ligament (a thick band of tissue similar to a very strong rubber band that works with the lateral collateral ligament to stabilize and strengthen the elbow). Throwing activities place unusual levels of stress on the elbow, making injury to the area more likely in baseball players, but it also seen in other sports such as softball, football, tennis and golf. In 1974, this type of injury was considered to be a career-ending event for a professional baseball pitcher. However, Tommy John decided to have an Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction (UCLR), a procedure that was experimental at the time, to replace the injured ligament with a tendon from his other arm. Less commonly, a donor tendon may be utilized in lieu of the patient’s own tendon.

He was not expected to be able to pitch again, but after a year of rehabilitating his arm, the results were extraordinary. John was able to return to pitching in 1976 and went on to pitch professionally for thirteen more years. Thus, the UCLR procedure became commonly known as “Tommy John surgery.” Many athletes who have had this procedure report feeling that their arm is actually stronger than prior to surgery. The vast majority make a complete recovery and yes, it should be covered by workers’ compensation.

For more information, visit:

Workers’ Compensation:  The Man-made Quagmire (Part 2 of 3)

Today’s post comes from guest author Paul J. McAndrew, Jr., from Paul McAndrew Law Firm.

This is the second part of a three-part series in which I explain why workers should claim their rights under workers’ compensation laws. The first installment explains how employers commonly and purposefully make it difficult for workers to claim comp. This second part explains ways in which workers’ compensation insurance companies (from here on our we’ll call them “insurers”) also throw up barriers to workers getting comp benefits.

It is worth noting that many employers – mostly large corporate employers – file for and obtain a certificate from the Iowa Division of Insurance to “self-insure” for purposes of workers’ compensation. These self-insured employers have offices filled with staff that carry out the same work and serve the same purposes as out-dwelling work comp insurers. They do the same things as out-dwelling insurers to bar coverage, also.  Thus, I will treat them as one entity – “the insurer.”

Our third segment will explain why other benefits and programs don’t come even close to providing what the worker receives in workers’ compensation. It’s unfortunate, but the best thing a worker can do is slog through this quagmire and make good on his or her rights in comp.

Again, researchers determined years ago that many barriers are erected by insurers. The insurers’ barriers don’t stop after the worker applies for comp. In fact, in my experience the insurers deter workers by making obtaining comp benefits so unpleasant and frustrating, that the workers with future injuries will opt to not claim comp, but rather try to make do with other benefits, if possible. The biggest reasons workers give up on their rights in workers’ compensation are due to the insurers’ conscious effort to frustrate, confuse and delay every aspect of the claims process. That, however, is exactly what should not happen in comp. Why do I say that? Because the Iowa Supreme Court has repeatedly said that for decades. According to the Court it’s a basic fact of Iowa worker’s compensation law “that the injured claimant is compensated swiftly, fairly and with the least possible ‘red tape.’” DeShaw v. Energy Mfg. Co., 192 N.W.2d 777, 784 (Iowa 1971)(citing Cross v. Hermanson Bros., 235 Iowa 739, 16 N.W.2d 616, 618 (1944)). Besides being fast in result, the process is supposed to incline in favor of the worker. Again, as stated by the Iowa Supreme Court, “we keep in mind that the primary purpose of chapter 85 [ed. the work comp code chapter] is to benefit the worker and so we interpret this law liberally in favor of the employee. Stone Container Corp. v. Castle, 657 N.W.2d 485, 489 (Iowa 2003).

So what should you do to protect your workers’ compensation rights when the insurer is ignoring them?

Part I: Dealing with the Insurer’s Persuasion Tactics

  1. The Adjuster – The Insurers’ First Fortress in the way of Every WC Claim

    People used to ask why I do not like adjusters. The reason is that very few of them (something less than 5% by my best estimate) have any goal but cutting costs for the insurer, no matter what means are used to do so. In light of that I most commonly file the claim early on so as to deal with the insurers’ lawyers rather than the adjuster. How does the adjuster form a barrier – a tough fort – standing in the way of a legitimate work comp claim?

    1. The Various Types of Obstructive Adjusters
      Adjusters commonly do several things that occur so frequently that I believe that these things are learned and practiced forms of conduct, which are designed to frustrate any injured worker. What things?
      1. The Absent Adjuster – most commonly the adjuster may never answer the phone, instead letting all of your calls go to voice-mail. Then, the adjuster will not return your calls.
      2. The Rude Adjuster – nearly as common is the adjuster who denies a claim without explanation and will be demeaning and condescending in refusing to be willing to explain anything. In a system in which the worker is usually without any way to know things, being put down and denied without explanation is a very effective method of driving the worker out.
      3. The 100% Purposely-Ineffective Adjuster – the adjuster many times will promise action on a benefit and may even set personal deadline to do so. Then, the adjuster fails to get the action and merely extends the time for the deadline, again and again. Again, this is a very effective means to drive a worker from the system because the benefits (both medical and money) are usually promptly needed.
  2. The Adjuster’s Wingman – The “Nurse Case Manager” Commonly the adjuster/insurer will assign a “nurse case manager” (hereinafter “NCM”) to your claim. The NCM is a “confidence person.” She (the NCM is always a female in my experience) will tell the worker and family that she is there to get better and more prompt care. In fact, the NCM almost invariably seeks to interfere with the minimal care that even a company doctor renders. In most cases the NCM will also do anything to persuade that the worker should be returned to work, whether safe or not. The only effective remedy I’ve found for the NCM who acts unreasonably in denying my clients care is to file a complaint with the Iowa Board of Nursing.
  3. Employer’s Choice of Medical – “Paul McAndrew’s best friend” Why is it my best friend? Because if the law allowed Iowa workers the right to choose their own medical care, more than half of the workers who come in and need me would no longer need me. Why say that? Because about 75% of the workers who come to my office do so only because they’ve been delayed, denied, and frustrated in getting timely and proper care, so much by the company doctor (usually in conjunction with the adjuster and NCM) that they can’t get back to work as they must and they come to me to merely get medical care. They don’t even want the benefits much. They want only to get healthy so they can get back to work and earn a living to support their family. How does the adjuster/NCM/company doctor bar proper and timely care? By these means:
    1. The Company “Hack” (General-Practice Doctor)
      There are many company doctors who are well known to the practicing work comp bar as being dedicated to one thing: Maintaining that doctor’s share of the insurers’ referral of injured workers by almost any means. This leads the doctor to be little more than a mouthpiece for the insurer. This takes the form of:
      1. Stating some uncouth reason why the injury did not arise out of and in course of (commonly called “cause” but very different than) work (e. g., the court reporter, Smith).
      2. Minimizing or even ignoring the worker’s injury condition until the worker is discharged to her/his own doctor, or just leaves due to frustration.
      3. Carrying the worker along over months of periodic clinic visits without any real effort to determine a diagnosis and treat that diagnosis.
    2. The Company “Sweetheart” (Specialist Doctor)
      This specialist—-commonly an orthopedic surgeon or neurosurgeon—becomes the insurer’s favorite by always giving a favorable-to-the-insurer opinion. Again, the Sweethearts are well known to lawyers, but not to the worker.

Part II: The Insurers’ Tricks for Wrongfully Manipulating Care

  • Prompt Care/Unreasonable Delay in Providing Care
    This speaks for itself. It’s far and away the most common method of denying care—just delay it long enough and the worker’s life demands will cause the worker to turn elsewhere for care. This is easily overcome with the Alternate Care Procedure, briefly described here.
  • When the Authorized Doctor Recommends Care that the Insurance Company Denies
  • When the Authorized Doctor Refers to another Doctor and the Insurance Company Denies or tries to Refer, instead, to its “Sweetheart”
  • When the Authorized Doctor orders care and, Instead, the Insurance Company tries to “Transfer Care” to a Sweetheart Who Will Likely say what the Insurance Company Wants to Hear
  • When the only Care Offered is not Convenient Care. This is now standardized: if the care offered is more than 50 miles from the worker’s home and the same type of care is offered closer, then the 50+ – care is “inconvenient.” Remember the “convenience” requirement applies only to “care.” Unfortunately, it does not apply to the company’s right to send the worker for a medico-legal, one-time “independent medical examination.”


Alternate Care Process

The Iowa Legislature enacted in 1913 the comp’s system’s healthcare provision method. Iowa Code 85.27. 85.27 provides that the employer has the right to make the initial selection of care. In this regard, Iowa is only one of ten out of the fifty states and the United States (under FECA (Federal Employee Comp Act) and the Long Shore Act) that provide the employer with such unfettered power. For years, a worker had to wait months or more than a year to get to the final hearing to challenge the insurance company’s denial of care.

In 1992, however, Commissioner Byron Orton drafted a provision that was accepted by consensus of all interest groups and enacted into law, which create the “alternate care process.” This process allows the worker to obtain prompt relief for the denial of proper care. The process is relatively simple and designed to be carried out by a worker or union representative.

NOTE: While Section 85.27 gives the employer the right to select care, that right is qualified. The care provided must be (1) prompt, (2) reasonably suited to treat the injury and (3) without undue inconvenience to the claimant. Westside Transport v. Cordell, 601 N.W. 2d619, 694 (Iowa 1999). The failure of the employer to provide care meeting any of these three requirements gives the worker the right to bring an alternate-care procedure and have the Division of Workers’ Comp. order proper care be provided.

The Steps for Filing and Prosecuting ON YOUR OWN an Alternate Care Claim

  1. Before filing, the worker must communicate the basis of her/his dissatisfaction with the care (or lack of care) offered by the employer. If you don’t, the filing will be dismissed. Communicate dissatisfaction in writing or the employer will likely deny that there was communication.
  2. File on the form provided by the Commissioner. This form can easily be obtained at There is no cost/filing fee. Make sure you send a copy of the form to your employer, also, as explained on the form.
  3. When filling out the form, ensure you state: (A) The specific medical treatment sought; (B) the grounds why what’s offered (if anything) is not proper (for example, “not prompt,” “not convenient,” or “not proper care for the injury condition,” etc.); and (C) that you ask for hearing by telephone.
  4. Alternative medical care proceedings are only prospective in nature. Bills for prior care will need to be adjudicated about a year later in the primary hearing.
  5. The grand majority of alternate care hearings are heard by phone.
  6. Alternate Care Procedures Yield Prompt Results. Why? Because by law the commissioner must both hear the alternate care matter by phone and issue the decision on the matter within ten (10) days of the filing of the alternate care petition.

Please join us next week for Part 3: Why it’s Important to Receive Comp.