Border law enforcement officer wearing mask and gloves due to COVID-19

THE CORONAVIRUS DISEASE, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SAFETY OFFICERS, AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

In the news, there have been a number of reports that Law Enforcement Officers and Safety Officers have contracted the coronavirus disease or COVID-19. These contractions of the disease may have been work-related. If they were work-related, the Officers would be entitled to pursue this Coronavirus Disease as an industrial injury entitling them to received workers’ compensation benefits.

This article will discuss how California Workers’ Compensation Law may specifically address Law Enforcement and Safety Officers who contract the disease. Most importantly, this article will discuss whether any presumptions apply.

What is Coronavirus?

Per the Centers of Disease Control, the Coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, is the cause of a disease known as “Coronavirus Disease 2019” or abbreviated as ‘COVID-19.” The Disease is something that is spread by “Person to Person” contact.

Per the Centers of Disease Control, “Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are common in people and many different species of animals, including camels, cattle, cats, and bats. Rarely, animal coronaviruses can infect people and then spread between people such as with MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and now with this new virus (named SARS-CoV-2).

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is a betacoronavirus, like MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.  All three of these viruses have their origins in bats.” The origin of the disease being from China. The CDC also noted that the disease spread via “person to person” contact. “Person to Person” contact then spread the disease outside of China.

The CDC refers to the spread of the disease to international destinations as “Community Spread.” The term “Community Spread” implies that there are some people who do not know how or where they became exposed.

How Can the Coronavirus Disease Be Work-Related?

Currently, in the United States, per the CDC, COVID-19 cases include (1) imported cases in travelers, (2) cases among close contacts of a known case, and (3) Community-acquired cases where the source of the infection is unknown. Cases (1) and (2) would be the situations for which there could be work-related contact that can be proven. If an infection source is unknown, it would be extremely difficult to prove that it could be work-related. With respect to Safety and Law Enforcement Officers, if they qualify, would be able to use a presumption to prevail on a community-acquired case. This article will explain which presumption applies in this circumstance.

What is the Illness Severity?

Per the CDC, “[t]he complete clinical picture with regard to COVID-19 is not fully known. Reported illnesses have ranged from very mild (including some with no reported symptoms) to severe, including illness resulting in death. While information so far suggests that most COVID-19 illness is mild, a report external icon out of China suggests serious illness occurs in 16% of cases. Older people and people of all ages with severe underlying health conditions — like heart disease, lung disease and diabetes, for example — seem to be at higher risk of developing serious COVID-19 illness.”

What Are the Signs of Infection?

Per the World Health Organization (WHO), the “[c]ommon signs of infection include respiratory symptoms, fever, cough, shortness of breath and breathing difficulties. In more severe cases, the infection can cause pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure, and even death.”

How Does One Know They Have Coronavirus Disease?

The CDC has a test kit “for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)” It is “is shipping the test kits to laboratories CDC has designated as qualified, including U.S. state and local public health laboratories, Department of Defense (DOD) laboratories and select international laboratories.”

How Does One Prevent Infection?

Per WHO, the “[s]tandard recommendations to prevent infection spread include regular hand washing, covering mouth and nose when coughing and sneezing, thoroughly cooking meat and eggs. Avoid close contact with anyone showing symptoms of respiratory illness such as coughing and sneezing.”

How Does One Have an Industrial Coronavirus Disease?

An industrial coronavirus disease infection would be one that occurs arising out of and in the course and scope of employment. Another means of an industrial coronavirus disease infection may be one obtained in which an injured worker contracted the disease while seeking medical attention for an existing industrial injury. For example, while treating in the hospital for a work-related broken arm, they become exposed to an infected patient at the hospital. As a result of that exposure, they contract the disease.

In order to prove an industrial case, one would have to succumb to the coronavirus disease. This would most likely require a diagnosis of the disease. Most likely, this would include positive testing for the disease. As noted, there is a test to prove whether one in fact as the disease. Therefore, this would be an important first step in proving an industrial injury. A positive test would be a valuable piece of evidence.

Second, since the disease is transmitted by human to human contact, there should be a history of the injured worker having some form of contact with someone infected with the coronavirus disease.

Third, there should be an expert medical opinion that within reasonable medical probability, more likely than not, that the transmission of the disease arose from industrial exposure. For example, if a worker was exposed to an infected co-worker but also was exposed by having three family members who were also exposed, the Doctor will have to make an in-depth analysis as to whether they believe the infection came from the work exposure.

Fourth, for Safety and Law Enforcement Officers, if a presumption applies in this matter, the expert medical opinion should address the application of the presumption.

What Type of Workers’ Compensation Benefits Can One Receive?

If industrial exposure is found, the full extent of workers’ compensation benefits would be available. This would include total temporary disability payments, medical treatment paid for by the insurance, permanent partial disability and death benefits. For certain Safety and Law Enforcement Officers, Labor Code Section 4850 Salary Continuation Benefits would apply.

What Type of Disease is Coronavirus?

For Law Enforcement and Safety Officers, the characterization of Coronavirus Disease is important. This author contends that Coronavirus Disease should be considered as a form of Pneumonia. The following article supports this position.

In the article. Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia March 26, 2020 N Engl J Med 2020; 382:1199-1207 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001316 reports that “[t]he earliest cases were identified through the “pneumonia of unknown etiology” surveillance mechanism.4 Pneumonia of unknown etiology is defined as an illness without a causative pathogen identified that fulfills the following criteria: fever (≥38°C), radiographic evidence of pneumonia, low or normal white-cell count or low lymphocyte count, and no symptomatic improvement after antimicrobial treatment for 3 to 5 days following standard clinical guidelines.”

It further noted that “[a] suspected NCIP case was defined as a pneumonia that either fulfilled all the following four criteria — fever, with or without recorded temperature; radiographic evidence of pneumonia; low or normal white-cell count or low lymphocyte count; and no reduction in symptoms after antimicrobial treatment for 3 days, following standard clinical guidelines — or fulfilled the abovementioned first three criteria and had an epidemiologic link to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market or contact with other patients with similar symptoms.” The disease in the article is referred to as of “novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)–infected pneumonia (NCIP)”

In sum, it is clear from this article that the Coronavirus Disease is a form of Pneumonia. Law Enforcement and Safety Personnel have a Pneumonia Presumption. Therefore, the Pneumonia Presumption should apply to the Coronavirus Disease.

What is the Law Enforcement and Safety Presumption That Should Apply to the Coronavirus Disease?

This author contends that the Pneumonia Presumption should apply to the Coronavirus Disease.

Labor Code Section 3212 provides “[i]n the case of members of a sheriff’s office or the California Highway Patrol, district attorney’s staff of inspectors and investigators or of police or fire departments of cities, counties, cities and counties, districts or other public or municipal corporations or political subdivisions, whether those members are volunteer, partly paid, or fully paid, and in the case of active firefighting members of the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection whose duties require firefighting or of any county forestry or firefighting department or unit, whether voluntary, fully paid, or partly paid, and in the case of members of the warden service of the Wildlife Protection Branch of the Department of Fish and Game whose principal duties consist of active law enforcement service. Excepting those whose principal duties are clerical or otherwise do not clearly fall within the scope of active law enforcement service.

Some such as

  • Stenographers
  • Telephone operators
  • Office workers

 

The term “injury” as used in this act includes hernia when any part of the hernia develops or manifests itself during a period while the member is in the service in the office, staff, division, department, or unit, and in the case of members of fire departments, except those whose principal duties are clerical, such as stenographers, telephone operators, and other office workers.

Also in the case of county forestry or firefighting departments, except those whose principal duties are clerical and in the case of active firefighting members of the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection whose duties require firefighting.

In the case of members of the warden service of the Wildlife Protection Branch of the Department of Fish and Game whose principal duties consist of active law enforcement service, excepting those whose principal duties are clerical or otherwise do not clearly fall within the scope of active law enforcement service such as stenographers, telephone operators, and other office workers, the term “injury” includes pneumonia … that develops or manifests itself during a period while the member is in the service of the office, staff, department, or unit. … The compensation that is awarded for … pneumonia shall include full hospital, surgical, medical treatment, disability indemnity, and death benefits, as provided by the workers’ compensation laws of this state.

pneumonia so developing or manifesting itself in those cases shall be presumed to arise out of and in the course of the employment. This presumption is disputable and may be controverted by other evidence, but unless so controverted, the appeals board is bound to find in accordance with it. The presumption shall be extended to a member following termination of service for a period of three calendar months for each full year of the requisite service, but not to exceed 60 months in any circumstance, commencing with the last date actually worked in the specified capacity.

The … pneumonia so developing or manifesting itself in those cases shall in no case be attributed to any disease existing prior to that development or manifestation.” [emphasis added]

Further, there is Labor Code Section 3212.10 which provides

[i]n the case of a peace officer of the Department of Corrections who has custodial or supervisory duties of inmates or parolees, or a peace officer of the Department of the Youth Authority who has custodial or supervisory duties of wards or parolees, or a peace officer as defined in Section 830.5 of the Penal Code and employed by a local agency, the term “injury” as used in this division includes …, pneumonia… that develops or manifests itself during a period in which any peace officer covered under this section is in the service of the department or unit. The compensation that is awarded for that injury shall include full hospital, surgical, medical treatment, disability indemnity, and death benefits as provided by the provisions of this division.

The …pneumonia… so developing or manifesting itself shall be presumed to arise out of and in the course of employment. This presumption is disputable and may be controverted by other evidence, but unless so controverted, the appeals board is bound to find in accordance with it. This presumption shall be extended to a member following termination of service for a period of three calendar months for each full year of requisite service, but not to exceed 60 months in any circumstance, commencing with the last date actually worked in the specified capacity.”

What If I Need Advice?

If you would like a “free” consultation concerning any workers’ compensation case, please contact the Law Offices of Edward J. Singer, a Professional Law Corporation. They have been helping people in Central and Southern California deal with their worker’s compensation cases for 28 years. Contact us today for more information.

How working from home affects workers comp claims in CA

WORKING AT HOME AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION: INJURIES WHILE WORKING AT HOME AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Accidents Will Happen”

-Elvis Costello

As a result of recent events, such as the Governor of the State of California’s business shutdown order with respect to the Coronavirus Disease, many employers are having their employees work remotely from their homes.

Workers’ Compensation Law has long wrestled with the issue of employees working remotely and specifically employees working at home.

This article will discuss the nature of employees “working at home,” the concept of “home as a second worksite,” and discuss the issue of “personal convenience” versus “actual work.”

The Nature and Extent of Remote Working

As a result of technology, the internet, the advent of paperless files, and cloud-based applications, the necessity to have a physical office has greatly diminished. In the legal profession, there are many attorneys who practice in workers’ compensation who have begun to exclusively work remotely. They no longer maintain an office at their firm and only come into the offices for special reasons. Further, there are many other fields that have moved work positions to be remote in nature. Further, in the work force, there are many emerging job positions that have been created from their inception as ones in which exclusively working remotely is intended.

During the State of California’s lockdown, I have continued to conduct work. This has included making numerous phone calls to law firms, insurance companies and doctor’s offices. During this time, I have discovered that many of these individuals were still working. Out of curiosity, I asked them how they were able to working during the shutdown. Many of them advised me that they had been working at home remotely for years. This included adjusters from insurance companies.

The Nature of Home as a Place of Employment: Primary versus Secondary Worksites

The California Supreme Court in Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 345, addressed the problems and nature of working at home with respect to Workers’ Compensation Law.

It noted “ [f]urthermore, we find little to commend the white-collar exception which we refused to establish in Wilson. It would, a fortiori, extend workers’ compensation benefits to workers injured in the homes themselves, as well as en route to and from their regular work places. Ironically, a white collar exception would probably not diminish the controversy surrounding the going and coming rule; it would merely shift it to a new and equally arbitrary “line” defining the “course of employment.” 16 Would the fact that an employee regularly took work-related materials home suffice to create a second jobsite, or would the employee have to show that he actually worked at home? How would we treat employees who work at home on some evenings but not on others, depending on their personal inclinations? And, of course, new problems of the “frolics and detours” variety would plague the new exception.

On the other hand, insofar as the board’s determination that the employee was “implicitly required” to maintain his home as a second jobsite was intended as a finding of fact, it is simply not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Although the evidence shows that most faculty members took work home and that the employer was well aware of this practice, there is nothing in the record which indicates that faculty members were required — implicitly or otherwise – to work at home rather than on campus. Rather, the evidence reveals that professors worked at home by choice, not because of the dictates of their employer. On this record, there is no room for a factual finding that working at home was a condition of Smyth’s employment.” [emphasis added]

In sum, the nature of whether one’s “working at home” is to be considered as work “arising out of and in the course and scope of employment” for the purposes of qualifying an individual for workers’ compensation benefits is a matter for the “finder of fact.” The “finder of fact” is the legal term of a Judge. In workers’ compensation, it would be the Workers’ Compensation Judge who would be the “fact finder” and make the decision.

The Implications of “Working at Home” Being a Matter to the “Finder of Fact.”

There are implications when the Court places the decision on finding industrial injury to the “finder of fact.” When a claim is filed, the insurance company has an obligation to investigate the claim. They will reach out via interview or deposition of the Applicant to get the facts of the injury. They, however, are not obligated to make an advocacy determination on the Injured Worker’s part as to why the matter should be considered as work-related. Therefore, many carriers will simply issue a denial and give the reason that the “injury did not occur at the workplace” as the basis for the denial.

If there is a denial, the matter will need to be tried at the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board before a Workers’ Compensation Judge to make a “finding” that it was an industrial injury.

In sum, in these circumstances, a claim of this matter may take time. The necessity of the trial creates delay with respect to the Injured Worker getting benefits and treatment. There will need to be multiple court dates and time for a Judge to make a written decision.

Second Worksite: Personal Convenience versus Second Business Situs

For workers who are provided a work location by their employer’s place of business and they also work at home. Caselaw has produced various decisions providing a factual analysis as to whether the injury is industrial.

The Supreme Court in Wilson vs. WCAB (1976) 41 C.C.C. 76, noted that “work done at home may exempt an injury occurring during a regular commute from the going and coming rule if circumstances of the employment — and not mere dictates of convenience to the employee — make the house a second jobsite. If the home becomes a second business situs, the familiar rule applies that injury sustained while traveling between jobsites is compensable. (Western States etc. Co. v. Bayside L. Co. (1920) 182 Cal. 140 [187 P. 735]; State Ins. Fund v. Industrial Comm. (1964) 15 Utah 2d 363 [393 P.2d 397]; 1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 15.14; cf. Pacific Indem. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1946) 28 Cal.2d 329 [170 P.2d 18]; Cal. Cas. Ind. Exch. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1943) 21 Cal.2d 751 [135 P.2d 158].) However, if work is performed at home for the employee’s convenience, the commute does not constitute a business trip, since serving the employee’s own convenience in selecting an off-premise place to work is a personal and not a business purpose. (1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, supra, § 18.33.)

In sum, whether one’s work at home for the employee’s personal convenience or not, comes into play on a determination of work-relatedness with respect to injuries sustained at an employee’s home.

The Wilson case dealt specifically dealt with an employee getting injured in a car accident while commuting from her home to work. A second work site could give rise to workers’ compensation liability when traveling from one work-site to another. If there is a home worksite, then an injury sustained while commuting to and from one’s one home could give rise to a valid workers’ compensation claim.

Caselaw: Injury Found Industrial When Employee Was Working at Home as Part of a Disability Accommodation

There was an interesting case in which a Worker, who had been allowed to work at home as a result of a disability accommodation for a non-industrial medical condition, suffered an injury at home and claimed it as being work-related.

While she was working at home, she suffered an injury while using her own restroom. She was transferring from the toilet to her wheelchair when she sustained injury.

In Santa Clara Valley Transportation vs. WCAB (2017) 82 Cal. Comp. Cases 1514(writ denied), it was noted that “Applicant’s permission to work at home was an accommodation and Applicant’s testimony that she work exclusively from her home for 10 to 12 months prior to her injury, for up to 70 hours per week. Furthermore, the WCJ observed that any preference expressed by Applicant for working at home was for health and safety reasons and was medically supported by Dr. So.”

In sum, this was found to be a work-related event. Again, this was a factually-based determination. There were significant facts that supported the findings. The fact that she exclusively worked from home, the fact that her employer agreed to allow her to work from home, and the length of time she worked from home all were excellent evidentiary facts to support the finding.

What if I Need Advice?

If you would like a free consultation regarding workers’ compensation, please contact the Law Offices of Edward J. Singer, a Professional Law Corporation. We have been helping people in Central and Southern California deal with their workers’ compensation cases for 27 years. Contact us today for more information.

CBD oil and how it may affect CA workers comp claim

CBD (Cannabinol) AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION: PUBLISHED IMR DECISIONS CONCERNING CBD AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Many Injured Workers who are seeking treatment as a result of their industrial injury often seek to treat with alternative medicine. Rather than taking prescription pills or medications, they seek treatment via other means such as natural forms of treatment. There are many herbs and supplements that have been used in medicine to treat various conditions. One form of natural treatment that has been touted, is CBD or Cannabinol. CBD has been recommended for treatment for a variety of medical conditions.

In California Workers’ Compensation, medical treatment is subject to insurance company approval via a Utilization Review(UR) Program. Further, a UR denial of treatment is subject to an appeal via an Independent Medical Review(IMR) program. The IMR Program issues determinations on the appeals. Some of these IMR determinations have been published by LexisNexis. LexisNexis is a service which provides legal resources and research to the legal community. Frequently, reporting from LexisNexis is used as authority to support legal positions.

Continue reading

How ergonomics affect those with muskuloskeletal disorders

ERGONOMICS AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Ergonomics play an important role in Workers’ Compensation. Work Injuries can be caused by poor ergonomics. Return-to-Work issues can involve the need for both ergonomic assessment and adjustment. Medical Treatment may involve the employment of ergonomic equipment.

This article will explore the field of Ergonomics and its impact on Workers’ Compensation Cases.

What is the Goal of Ergonomics?

Per the Centers for Disease Control and their National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), “[t]he goal of ergonomics (i.e. the scientific study of people at work) is to prevent soft tissue injuries and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) caused by sudden or sustained exposure to force, vibration, repetitive motion, and awkward posture.”

Thus, it is well recognized that exposure to force, vibration, repetitive motion and awkward posture can be causative force to a work injury. These MSDs can also occur when there is overexertion. This can also refer to repetitive motion involving microtasks. MSDs can involve other exertions or reactions. These sources of MSDs can include circumstances where matters are rubbed, abraded or jarred by vibration.

MSDs can include injuries and illness in which there is a herniated disc, hernias, meniscal tears, muscle sprains, muscle strains, numbness, pain, pinched nerve, swelling, or tears.

MSDs can include such conditions as Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Epicondylitis, Low Back Injuries, Muscle Sprains, Muscle Strains, Raynaud’s Syndrome, Rotator Cuff Injuries, Tarsal Tunnel, Tendinitis, and Trigger Finger.

Are There Occupations that are at High Risk of Musculoskeletal Disorders?

Yes. There are a large number of occupations that are at high risk for musculoskeletal disorders.

These Occupations include Bus Drivers(transit and intercity), Firefighters and Prevention Workers, Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics and Installers, Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers, Janitors and Cleaners, Laborers and Freight Stock and Material Movers, Light Truck or Delivery Services Drivers, Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners, Maintenance and Repair Workers, General, Plumbers, Pipefitters and Steamfitters, Police and Sheriff Patrol Officers, Production Workers, Refuse and Recyclable Material Collectors, Registered Nurses, Nursing Assistants, and Psychiatric Aides, Stock Clerks and Order Fillers, and Telecommunication Line Installers and Repairers.

MSDs play an important concern with respect to work injury prevention and causation of work injuries. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in 2013, MSD cases accounted for 33% of all worker injury and illness cases.

How is the Goal of Ergonomics Achieved?

Per the CDC, “[t]o create an ergonomically sound work environment, NIOSH ergonomists and industrial hygienists recommend designing tasks, workspaces, controls, displays, tools, lighting, and equipment to fit employee’s physical capabilities and limitations.”

In the long run, it is a process that promotes safety in the workplace as well as reduce the risk of injury.

What Are Some Examples of Ergonomics?

Ergonomics applications can include adjustments to one’s seating arrangements, ie an ergonomically correct chair. Also, there can be adjustments to one’s desk and workstation. Various adjustments can be done to limit awkward postures.

Ergonomics, Medical Treatment and a Recent Independent Medical Review Decision

In a published IMR decision, there was the following comment made to overrule the UR determination denying ergonomic equipment

The MTUS ACOEM guidelines state,“ [i]t is often then helpful to discuss practical strategies for modifying the worksite to accommodate the worker and strategies to reduce the risk of recurrent injury, including addressing toxicological exposures, ergonomic factors, supervision, interpersonal factors, personal protective equipment, and task design.”  The IMR noted that

The requested ergonomic desk chair does qualify as a practical strategy for reducing the risk of recurrent injury. The current request is medically necessary. See 83 C.C.C. 1628.

In sum, the reason for requesting the ergonomic work-station was important. It was not about what could help the Injured Worker work but rather what can help an Injured Worker reduce the risk of recurrent injury regardless of where they are when they are using the equipment.

In sum, characterizing the need for the equipment under the guise of it assisting an injured worker return to the labor market is not of import when it comes to the issue of workers’ compensation medical treatment.

Ergonomic Assessments and Causation of Injury AOE/COE, A Caselaw Example

In a workers’ compensation reported case decision, the issue of whether a station was ergonomically correct was of import. In Cole vs. WCAB (2003) 68 C.C.C. 813 (writ denied.)

In the case, a Defense Ergonomic Evaluator was used to controvert a claim of a work injury. The expert indicated that the Applicant’s chair was correctly adjusted and that she was provided a lumbar support. Therefore, there was an argument that there was no showing that the Applicant’s chair was ergonomically defective. The Defendant’s Qualified Medical Evaluator found, as a result, that there was no aggravation of her pre-existing degenerative disc disease.

Thus, an Ergonomic Assessment can be used to defeat a claim of injury arising out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Ergonomic Equipment at Work Not to Be Considered as Medical Treatment

In Costa vs. SCIF, 2010 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. Lexis 126 (Panel Decision), the WCAB reported that “[w]e are not persuaded that the recommended ergonomic equipment fits within the definition of apparatuses under the circumstances presented here, i.e. where the injured worker needs to have her work station modified at another employer’s place of business for as long as a physician recommends such modification.” The WCAB reversed the WCJ’s award of ergonomic equipment as an element of applicant’s award of further medical treatment.

Poor Ergonomics as a Mechanism of Injury

In Jackson vs. Shasta Lake 2016 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. Lexis 155 (Panel Decision), to support a claim of injury, the records in the matter indicated that “the claimant was exposed to prolonged periods of time in which she had a suboptimal ergonomic arrangement for her desk, in which she has to raise her arms and shoulders too high, putting her in prolonged postures of cervical extension and shoulder musculature extension leading to increased pain and inability to continue to focus her attention on her work.”

What if I Need Advice?

If you would like a free consultation regarding workers’ compensation, please contact the Law Offices of Edward J. Singer, a Professional Law Corporation. We have been helping people in Central and Southern California deal with their workers’ compensation cases for 27 years. Contact us today for more information.

 

WHERE TO FIND MY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ATTORNEY: WHAT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ATTORNEYS ARE DOING DURING THE WORKDAY: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Workers’ Compensation Attorneys perform many tasks during a regular workday. Many of these tasks limit their availability to clients. The reason for this limited availability is that Workers’ Compensation Attorneys perform many tasks performed which prohibit them from being able to be reached via phone call, text, or email. This article will discuss the various tasks that Workers’ Compensation Attorneys perform which may limit their availability to clients.

Continue reading

9.3Edward Jay Singer
Edward Jay SingerReviewsout of 22 reviews