Depositions: When the truth is “I don’t know”

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

“Tell the truth” is some good advice we’ve all heard and hopefully listened to once in a while. However, when it comes to having your deposition taken, this advice can take on a slightly different meaning. Our experienced attorneys guide hundreds of clients through depositions each year, so we often see this challenge.

It is human nature to seek answers to our questions. But sometimes in our quest for satisfaction, we have a hard time resisting the urge to make a leap or two, or start to speculate, or make assumptions about potential solutions. This is particularly true when we are faced with a formal line of questions such as those asked in a deposition. We feel guilty and lacking somehow if we don’t know the answer to a question, or we can’t remember a name or date or what happened between the blow to the head and waking up in the hospital. … It gives us a good feeling inside and relieves a little pressure to at least try to put the puzzle pieces together for the person asking the question. We’re nervous, and it just goes against our helpful natures to simply say “I don’t know.”

Sometimes, though, this very human trait can lead to problems for a case. At some point in the midst of these leaps in logic and speculation on answers to questions, our answer can transform into something that is no longer the truth. While speculating or thinking out loud isn’t lying, when you get down to it, it isn’t really telling the truth either. Sometimes the absolute, 100% honest-to-goodness truth is simply, “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember,” and that is a perfectly okay answer to give. When your words have the power to potentially damage your case, it is important to choose them wisely, and remember you do not need to give in to the pressure of making assumptions or jumping to conclusions to come up with a satisfactory answer. Just tell the truth.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Good News for American Workers

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

I read an encouraging article  in The Washington Post: “A return to ‘Made in America’? Is U.S. manufacturing making a comeback — or is it just hype?”

Everyone concerned with the plight of American workers should read the article. Manufacturing does seem to be growing once again in the USA. The article points out several reasons for this trend, including the increasing cost of Chinese manufacturing and increased American productivity. The news is not great, because many, if not most, of the new manufacturing jobs pay less than the jobs we lost. However, the jobs seem to be coming back.

I grew up in a tiny little factory town that proudly made Vise-Grip wrenches. The family-owned company supported generations of families, provided summer jobs for college kids, and taught us what work meant. (My introduction to workers’ compensation came at age 18 with an industrial injury.) However, the plant was sold and resold and resold until it was finally uprooted and sent to China. My hometown, like so many others was devastated.

A Bruce Springsteen song, “My Hometown,” brings tears to my eyes when I recall what happened to my hometown. These lyrics are particulary haunting:

“Now main streets whitewashed windows and vacant stores
Seems like there aint nobody wants to come down here no more
They’re closing down the textile mill across the railroad tracks
Foreman says these jobs are going boys and they aint coming back to
Your hometown, your hometown, your hometown, your hometown”

Hopefully the mythical foreman had it wrong and the jobs are starting to come back to our hometowns! Keep on buying American, folks.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

September 11th Remembered – October 3rd Deadline Approaching

This week we observe the anniversary of the September 11th attacks. As part of our remembrance, we also have an obligation to care for both the direct victims and for those who were injured as a result of their brave response to the attacks.

October 3 is the deadline for most people to register for compensation through the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

We urge anyone who has not yet filed and thinks they may have a claim to contact us. If you would like more information, you can send us a message via Facebook or call us toll free at 800-692-3717.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Opioid Use in Worker’s Compensation

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

Many of my back-injured clients use pain relief medication in the opioid family: Hydrocodone (Vicodin), Oxycodone (Oxycontin or Percocet), Fentanyl (Duragesic or Fentora), Methadone, and Codeine.  Many variations of opioids exist, each with a different level of potency. The worker’s compensation industry has labeled excessive opioid use “an epidemic, particularly targeting worker’s compensation.” The Center for Disease Control has noted the problem of opioid abuse as a national danger.

The CDC latest statistics show close to 40,000 drug overdose deaths each year in the United States, more than half of which involve prescription drugs. Deaths in which opioids are used now exceed deaths involving heroin and cocaine combined. The drug overdose deaths are more numerous that motor vehicle crash deaths and the numbers have gone up every year since the turn of the century. One contributing factor is that many work-related injuries are back injuries, for which doctors increasingly prescribe opioids for both short and long term to address pain. CDC medical epidemiologist Dr. Leonard Paulozzi recently noted worker’s compensation medical providers may be exceeding guidelines from the American College of Occupational Environmental Medicine regarding the use of opioids and how long they should be used. Dr. Paulozzi noted 42% of workers with back injuries had opioid prescriptions in the first year after the injury, most of them after their first medical visit, but 16% of those workers were still receiving opioids a year after the injury. He noted while opioids might be good for use as acute medication, for example within six weeks after the injury, continuation of opioids is not indicated beyond that short term use.

Prescription medication has become a bigger portion of medical expense in all States, especially if the worker becomes dependent or addicted to the opioid medication to control pain.  Opioids are generally prescribed for several reasons in worker’s compensation claims, including catastrophic injury with chronic pain and injury involving surgical treatment necessitating pain control and general pain control.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

When It’s Time to Take the Keys Away from Parents

Today’s post comes from guest author Rod Rehm and Emily Wray Stander, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

Growing old is a contact sport that is not recommended for the frail. Telling elderly parents that they no longer can drive may keep them and others safer, but almost always takes away both independence and control. So it’s a tough subject, even if there’s already been one or more minor car accidents involving a parent’s driving.

One of the common themes in many of these articles is to actually ride with your parents and notice if they have physical limitations or are slow to react to situations around them, keeping in mind that cues are usually more subtle than blatantly running a red light, although that may be one clue. Another theme is examining action tactics to figure out who actually approaches the person for the conversation and takes away the keys – suggestions include talking to both the doctor and a supervisor at the DMV to enlist them as allies.

There is an abundance of commentary on this subject to help you (and others who might need to) stage an intervention with your parents. Links below includes advice and tips about both discerning whether it’s time to have the conversation and more details about discussing no more driving and the potential aftermath.

  • Here is one website with a comprehensive list of resource articles and links to answer many questions folks might have about this scenario:

    Aging Parents Driving: Answer the common question ‘How can I tell if my elderly parent should no longer be driving?’ Learn how to take the keys away from an aging mother or father. Find out how to deal with stubborn aging parents who think their driving is safe. Know the common signs that your parent should no longer be driving and where to turn for assistance.”

  • This next article has a checklist that helps determine whether it’s really unsafe for a parent to drive. And I think it also had some good advice from an official at the AARP: “We use the term ‘Prepare with your head and talk with your heart.’”
  • Here’s an article that is a much lighter look at the serious subject at hand.
  • I thought that this next article was useful because Nebraska and Iowa, like California – where the author lives – have a lack of public transportation infrastructure, which is an even bigger problem in rural areas. As the story says, “It can be a tough thing to tell a parent. First, do some research. Second, choose your words carefully.”
  • This article uses checklists to explore the process of approaching a parent for this conversation. It also encourages empathy and challenges folks to consider what it would be like if they had to stop driving for even a short period of time and how their lives would be affected.
  • As a different approach, there are also support threads and websites out there that address an extremely large number of scenarios that come up with elderly parents, including the dilemma of taking away the keys. Here’s an example of one board with questions and answers that I thought was both respectful to the parents and also encouraged advocating for safety, even if that meant taking away the keys.

For further thought, even after having this particular conversation with your parents, keep in mind that someday someone will be having the conversation with you. Think about and reflect if you’d be ready – will you be receptive to a loved one’s concerns?

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Your Social Security Benefits After The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) Decision

Nearly two months after the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Social Security Administration has announced that it will start to pay benefits to some individuals in same-sex marriages. In order to be eligible for benefits, these individuals must meet the same criteria as individuals in opposite-sex marriages, in addition to several other requirements.

Only applications for spousal benefits are being approved right now. Spousal benefits are payable to a spouse who either 1) did not work enough to be entitled to Social Security benefits or 2) worked enough to be entitled to Social Security benefits but would be entitled to a larger benefit on their spouse’s earnings record.  This is generally the case when one spouse earned significantly more than the other spouse over the course of their working lives. The individual on whose earnings record the claim is made (the number holder, in SSA’s terms) must also be entitled to old-age or disability benefits from Social Security. In order to receive spousal benefits, you must be at least age 62 and have been married to the number holder for at least one year.

The individual applying for benefits (the claimant, in SSA’s terms) must show that he or she was married to the number holder in a state that permits same-sex marriage and that the number holder is living in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage either 1) when the application for benefits is filed or 2) while the application is pending a final determination. It does not matter what state the claimant lives in. What matters for SSA’s purposes is the state the number holder lives in. This only matters when spouses live in different states.

Below is a chart from SSA that shows which states recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, and when those states permitted same-sex marriages.  If a state is not listed, it does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or permit same-sex marriages to be performed.

Before filing a claim for benefits or moving to a different state, you should consult with an experienced attorney or with the Social Security Administration to determine your eligibility for benefits.  As SSA continues to pay benefits to more individuals in connection with the Supreme Court’s decision, we will provide updated information regarding who may be eligible for these benefits.

State

Date Same-Sex Marriages from Any Other State Was Recognized

Date Same-Sex Marriages Were Permitted in the State

California June 17, 2008 – November 4, 2008

June 26, 2013 – present

June 17, 2008 – November 4, 2008

June 26, 2013 – present

Connecticut November 12, 2008 November 12, 2008
Delaware July 1, 2013 July 1, 2013
Iowa April 30, 2009 April 20, 2009
Maine December 29, 2012 December 29, 2012
Maryland February 23, 2010 January 1, 2013
Massachusetts May 17, 2004 May 17, 2004
Minnesota August 1, 2013 August 1, 2013
New Hampshire January 1, 2010 January 1, 2010
New York February 1, 2008 July 24, 2011
Rhode Island May 14, 2012 August 1, 2013
Vermont September 1, 2009 September 1, 2009
Washington December 6, 2012 December 6, 2012
Washington, DC July 7, 2009 March 9, 2010

 

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Don’t Miss This Important Deadline For The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund

The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (the Fund) is approaching an important deadline. Anyone who knew or had reason to know of physical harm or illness resulting from the 9/11 attacks before October 3, 2011 is required to register by October 3, 2013.

Registration preserves your right to file a claim in the future (before the Fund ends on October 3, 2016). Registration is not the same as filing a claim and does not commit you to file a claim even if you have registered. If you are uncertain about when your illness began, register by the October 3, 2013 deadline to preserve your right to file a claim.

Please contact us if you have any questions about the Fund or how to file your claim.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

The Toxic Cloud Over the US EPA

Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Gelman, from Jon Gelman, LLC – Attorney at Law.

Chromium IV is a deadly cancer causing substance. In September 2010 the scientists came to the conclusion that even a small amount of the chemical compound found in drinking water could be fatal if consumed. Today the PBS NEWSHOUR airs a documentary, EPA Contaminated by Conflict of Interest,  on how the chemical Industry is quietly delaying implementation of regulation of Chromium IV.

The compound, hexavalent chromium, gained infamy in the Oscar-winning film Erin Brockovich, based on the David-vs.-Goliath legal duel between desert dwellers in Hinkley, Calif., and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. The film ends in Hollywood fashion, with the corporate polluter paying $333 million to people suffering from illnesses.

Companies with a stake in chromium have borrowed from the Big Tobacco playbook,
using science to create doubt.

But in real life, the drama continues. More than 70 million Americans drink traces of chromium every day, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research organization.

 

TOXIC INFLUENCE is an ongoing series of reports exploring the nexus between industry, science and policy. This story is being produced in partnership with the Center for Public Integrity.

 ….
Jon L.Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
 
Read more about Chromium IV and Workers’ Compensation
Oct 25, 2012
Areas underneath the building, located at 125 Clark Street, are contaminated with hexavalent chromium that is reaching the basements of some area residences and businesses through the ground water. The EPA continues …
Oct 03, 2009
The US Department of Defense has announced that it will investigate emerging environmental and health risks arising from chemical exposures. One of the particular areas of concern is the exposure to hexavalent chromium …
Jun 09, 2009
Soldiers who have been exposed to hexavalent chromium, a carcinogen, have filed suit against a government contractor. The present and former soldiers have brought a claims against KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root), …
Jul 10, 2009
Hexavalent chromium [Chromium (VI) [hexavalent chromium or Cr(VI)]”means chromium with a valence of positive six, inany form and in any compound.] has been added to the list of air contaminants whose concentrations …
 
Related articles

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.