The Jackson Sun:

Since 1919 workers’ compensation has given hardworking men and women injured on the job the security they need to continue to take care of their families. Workers’ Comp has come to mean security, well being and peace of mind for dependents. It is, quite frankly, the only recourse workers who are injured on the job have to make ends meet until they are able to work again.

In a few days, the legislature will begin to debate the changes to workers’ compensation proposed by Go. Bill Haslam. Jackson’s own Rep. Jimmy Eldridge will preside over the debate.

Under Haslam’s plan, all workers’ compensation cases will be removed from the impartial court system and brought under a newly created workers’ comp government bureaucracy with appointed, not elected, judges. This brand new state agency will handle all workers’ compensation claim disputes and will be yet another hoop to jump through for workers who are injured on the job.

The governor’s representative recently explained to Rep. Eldridge’s committee that the governor wants the changes to create a ‘fair playing field.’ But what is fair about a system with zero impartiality? Currently, the system is fair and impartial because elected judges hear the cases. If Haslam’s changes are approved by the legislature, the Governor will get to appoint a workers’ compensation “czar,” who will have the power to choose all the judges (and review all decisions). The “czar” and staff will also determine if injuries are work related, determine the allowable treatment for each injury (including the number of therapy visits, the type of surgery, the types of medications, etc.), reduce physician judgment, and ration treatment.

In addition to the “czar,” the governor will also appoint all three appeals judges.

Even the supposed “neutral” ombudsman is an executive appointee. In this insular system, decisions made will become political, susceptible to even more influence of special interests. Instead of “fair and impartial,” the governor will trade the well-being of the hardworking people of the state for a favor to the insurance industry.

The proposed changes would also cut paychecks to injured workers who can eventually return to work by one-third and drastically cut payments to workers who are so injured that they cannot go back to work. These cuts, along with cuts made in 2008, mean an injured worker who goes back to work collects 60 percent less than in 2007. Has anyone considered the families of injured workers in this proposed “new normal?” Has anyone considered that if an injured workers has less in his paycheck, then he has less to sustain his or her family?

Finally, under current Tennessee workers’ compensation law, employers have an economic incentive to put injured and recovered workers back to work. The new system removes that incentive and makes it easier, and cheaper, for an employer to fire an injured worker and hire a younger or healthier worker. Hardworking Tennesseans are our most valuable resource. They manufacture, fix, create and build. They are the engines of the economy. Why would we want to treat them as if they are disposable?

As they consider the changes, they have a choice to make: Are they going to fight to protect the families of the hardworking Tennesseans who elected them OR will they side with special interests like big insurance companies and large corporations who already benefit from so many loopholes and tax giveaways?

At a time when almost no one in politics agrees on anything, everyone can agree that when workers get injured on the job, they should be able to take time to heal without worrying about the health and well-being of their family.

The Tennessee General Assembly must get serious about strengthening Tennessee by saving workers’ comp and protecting the families of working folks. That means prioritizing working families ahead of special interests and large corporations.

The Legislature and the Governor that the people of Tennessee elected to represent their interests are about to strip those citizens from rights they have had for almost 100 years. What they are doing is cynical, self-serving, damaging to working people everywhere, and just plain wrong.

If you did not elect your state senator and representative to take away your rights, call, wirte and email them and let them know you oppose this legislation. You can find your legislator here.

How the Hobbit SHOULD have ended:

Changes to Tennessee Worker's Compensation: "Not fair. Not Helpful. Not Reform. Not Relief:"

The proposal to change the way the system works - and it's a big, big, BIG change - will not only severly limit the amount of relief that will go to an injured worker and his family, but changes the way the system works so much that it will primarily concentrate all the decision-making power into the hands of one politically-appointed bureaucrat.

Tennessee may revamp workers' comp laws: Our system, which has been good enough for almost 100 years, apparently no longer is good enough. Understand that the state government has quietly been gutting peoples' rights in worker's compensation for years. The only real possibility of a fair and just result was the chance to take a decision before a judge or the Supreme Court. The current Worker's Cpmpensation Specialist program is under-funded, understaffed, and has people sitting in judgment of peoples' claims who often are not qualified to be a "judge." Regardless, the state wants to create an entirely new agency -- imagine how much that will cost -- to extend and perpetuate the increasing unfairness experienced by the workers of our state on a daily basis.

Why? Here's the answer, right at the end of the article: "[Court involvement] really has led to some court decisions that have been quite adverse to employers.” Big Business has so little respect for the public that they don't even come up with a new excuse for taking away your rights; this is the same canard they used last year and the year before.

Whatever legislation is proposed by the Pilot state government, er, the Haslam Administration, will pass; the Republicans have more than enough votes to do basically whatever they want. And what they want is for no individual in this state to have either the right or practical ability to seek compensation for personal injuries.

To paraphrase Herman Wouk, in War and Remembrance [ebook, p.125], when individual rights die, they die like a cloudy day, without a visible moment of sunset. So it is with worker's compensation, and so it has been for the rights of Tennesseeans to see legal redress in the courts.

Are you smarter than an 8th grader (circa 1895)? I'm not.

“Are Personal Injury Paralegals Ambulance Chasers?” You decide:

We help real people with real problems. We step in when insurance companies fail to extend reasonable offers, when facts are complicated or people need help navigating the complex legal landscape. We take cases to trial. We stand in the courtroom to ask a jury of peers to award our injured clients what they are entitled to. We hold our client’s virtual hands throughout the entire legal process. We answer questions. We provide guidance. We offer care, compassion and empathy to people when they need it most, often when they have encountered the ultimate low in life. We lift them up, help them along, encourage them, sooth them, address their each and every concern, and most importantly, represent their interests by giving a voice to their cause. We become an extension of them. We proudly represent them. We walk with them, talk with them, and at times, become like friends or family to them.

In the Battle for Reasonable Compensation in Serious Personal Injury Cases, Who Are The Bad Guys? As a Knoxville personal injury attorney, a couple of quotes really resonated with me:

[I]njured clients who retain attorneys receive 3 and 1/2 times the compensation that clients who do not retain attorneys receive. Why is that? Because if a client does not retain a well-trained, experienced, "in the trenches" attorney, the insurance company will take advantage of the client, every single time. And, adequate compensation to disabled victims is important in making those responsible (and their insurance companies) for their fate, responsible for their care. Otherwise, the accident victims become a drain on, dependent upon the "system" (taxpayers) for assistance. We, the people, become responsible, instead of the wrongdoers and their insurance companies that profited from taking on the risks.

And:

To the public and the media, Insurance companies market discount pricing. They claim to have the lowest rates; they claim to be your "good neighbor", that you are "in good hands", that they are "on your side". Not a single insurance company markets or brags about how well they treat their policy holders (or those that their policy holders injure or kill); they simply do not disclose their claims-handling prowess. They only want you to know how inexpensive their product is when compared to their competitors. However, if they are not on your side, if they are a terrible neighbor, if you are in hostile hands, than their "discounted rates" are not "cheap", at all. I submit that they are worthless, without a strong, consumer friendly, claims handling policy. You see, the truth is, and most insurance executives will admit this, insurance companies are not in the business of helping people who have suffered a loss or who have suffered a devastating injury. Insurance companies are in the business of making money for their shareholders.

Finally: "While there is nothing wrong with making money, there is something wrong with making it so deceptively."

Don't drink and, uh, ride? Kentucky man on horse arrested for DUI. Ridiculous.

Lubbock County Judge Tom Head (R) wants a tax hike to ensure that the police have enough troops to fight off the United States, if Obama is re-elected and civil war ensues.

And this rabble rouser sits in judgment of others? Sheesh.

As a Knoxville personal injury attorney, I am gratified to see the public outrage (see comments below statement) at Progressive Insurance over its underinsured motorist denial of liability against its own policyholder in the auto accident death of Katie Fisher two years ago. As pleased as I am to see the public finally understand how auto insurance companies operate, the sad truth is that Progressive's actions in the Fisher case are simply par for the course.

Here's the scenario: it was an intersection accident, so the question was whether Katie Fisher ran the red light or whether the defendant ran the red light. There were witnesses who said that Katie ran the red light. I have told clients for years that an insurance company will deny liability and refuse to pay a claim if there is any hint that the claimant was at fault. That's why Progressive refused to accept the claim.

Now, the way insurance works is like this: if the at-fault driver [the defendant] has relatively little liability coverage, then the liability insurance company -- in this case Nationwide -- will often offer its policy limits -- in this case a mere $25,000 -- because Nationwide sees a real danger of a jury verdict over $25,000, AND Nationwide also has a duty to protect its own insured, the defendant. By offering the policy limits, Nationwide has done everything it can do contractually to protect its own insured, the defendant. Offering policy limits gets Nationwide off the hook for being sued on a bad faith breach of contract case. Nationwide doesn't casre about the Fishers, any more than Progressive does. They don't even much care about their own policyholder who they are supposed to be protecting. They're offering the money to try to cover their own corporate posterior. That's why Nationwide offered the $25,000 policy limits

In general, an offer of policy limits will trigger the uninsured motorist coverage [UIM]. At that point, Progressive, which had $100,000 in UIM coverage, had a maximum exposure of the amount over the liability offer and its own limits: $75,000. Legally, however, if Progressive thinks that Katie Fisher had fault in the wreck, then it can deny liability and force a jury trial. Which is exactly what Progressive did. (Note: I find Progressive's actions contemptible, too. it's just that this happens all the time; it's routine.) To Progressive -- and any other insurance company, for that matter -- it's a business decision, and if they determine that they can get away with paying less, or nothing, then that is just what they will try to do.

Well, they gambled and they lost. The jury hit the defendant for $760,000. Nationwide has probably already paid its $25,000. Progressive is definitely on the hook for at least another $75,000. What the parties are negotiating about now is the additional jury verdict of $660,000. I'm sure the Fishers are contending that Progressive should pay the entire $760,000, less Nationwide's $25,000: $735,000. Progressive is trying to get the Fishers to take less, and is probably threatening to appeal the case if the Fishers don't cave. An appeal is likely to cost another year of waiting, with a very real chance the verdict will be reversed and sent back for an entirely new trial.

A couple of comments. First, if members of the public are outraged, do something about it. Elect legislators, congressmen and senators that will prtect the rights of innocent victoms, instead of trampling all over them. Serve on juries and award fair verdicts to injured personal injury victims.

Anybody notice that the Baltimore City Circuit Court jury thought Katie Fisher's life was only worth $760,000? I ought not to be surprised; Big Insurance and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been working for years -- decades -- to poison the minds of potential jurors. That's you, and everyone you know. If you want to know all about the conspiracy that's being carried out under all our noses, see Hot Coffee. Here's the trailer:

Also, go to your state government and insist on vigorous enforcement of your state's insurance laws. It's an open secret that various states' insurance commissioners are often retired insurance executives. They have no inclination to help injured victims of negligence. At the same time they have every reason, based on a lifetime's worth of biases, to favor the insurance industry. Because there is no federal regulation of the insurance industry, it's up to each state to police the insurance companies doing business in that particular state. If your governor is not protecting your interests by appointing qualified and objective commissioners, get a new governor.

Let's be very clear here: Big Insurance and the U.S. Chamber are laughing all the way to the bank at how they are manipulating the public into voting for the very representatives that are taking away their rights. Maybe this Fisher case will get some people thinking about that.

A very nice Q&A on Social Security questions.

Paul Ryan: "We would have hired him at Bain."

Telling it like it is:

[T]he top priority for Washington Republicans was denying Obama bipartisan victories, so that they could come back from political oblivion. There’s a lot of fun fly-on-the-wall stuff in the book ["The New New Deal"] about meetings where Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and other GOP leaders made this case—and on-the-record quotes from former GOP congressmen like Mike Castle, George Voinovich, and Specter complaining about it. McConnell often reminded his caucus about the 1984 election. Everyone remembers it as the 49-state Reagan landslide, Morning in America; people forget that only one Republican challenger ousted a Democratic incumbent that year. (It was McConnell, so he remembers.) His point was that there was nothing to be gained by going along with Obama. If the recovery plan worked and the economy boomed, Republicans would get re-elected even if they had voted against Obama. But if the economy was still struggling in 2010, Republicans could make a comeback if they stuck together. [emphasis added]

Journalist Michael Grunwald argues with persuasiveness that the Obama stimulus not only was similar to Republicans' stimulus proposals in 2008 (including Mitt Romney), but also that the stimulus has worked, pointing out that

Most of the money in the stimulus went to unsexy stuff designed to prevent a depression and ease the pain of the recession: aid to help states avoid drastic cuts in public services and public employees; unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other assistance for victims of the downturn; and tax cuts for 95 percent of American workers. And the money that did flow into public works went more toward fixing stuff that needed fixing—aging pipes, dilapidated train stations, my beloved Everglades—than building new stuff. In its first year, the stimulus financed 22,000 miles of road improvements, and only 230 miles of new roads. There were good reasons for that. Repairs tend to be more shovel-ready than new projects, so they pump money into the economy faster. They also pass the do-no-harm test. (New sprawl roads make all kind of problems worse.) And they are fiscally responsible. Repairing roads reduces maintenance backlogs and future deficits; building roads add to maintenance backlogs and future deficits.

Ultimately, the stimulus bill "provided a new model for government spending—with unprecedented transparency, unprecedented scrutiny, and unprecedented competition for the cash." The reason the public seems not to comprehend this state of affairs is that "the national media sucks at covering public policy."

Not to toot my own horn, but I've been saying much the same thing for quite some time.

The American Legislative Exchange Council: a secretive, corporate-controlled lobby for conservative causes?

"We think Tennessee legislators are being bought and paid for by an exclusive network of corporate lobbyists and special interest groups," said Mary Mancini, executive director of Tennessee Citizen Action.

I think so, too. If the legislature is supposed to be the voice and will of the people, then that ideal has been -- and is being -- perverted and subverted by this organization, which spoon-feeds to state legislators conservative ideological model bills for them to take back to their home states. Tennessee included. You don't think last year's rights restriction law was thought up here in Tennessee, do you?

Overlooking disability insurance can be costly: Worth reading.

Why Has the Social Security Disability Insurance Program Grown So Rapidly? Basically three reasons: (1) The aging of the workforce -- More people are working longer, and older people are more likely to qualify for disability; (2) More women than ever are working and, therefore, potentially eligible for disability, leading to higher numbers of disabled beneficiaries; (3) the 1984 changes in policy expanded the ways in which people could qualify for the disability program. See page 7 of the report.

Note that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says nowhere that people are using disability claims as an quasi-unemployment payment. That's because it just ain't so.

Protect Insurance Companies:

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

Sarcasm? Nah.

The dangers of personal watercraft:

On July 4, fellow sophomore and [Duke football] teammate Jamison Crowder collided with Holliday’s vessel while the two were riding personal watercraft on Lake Tillery, about an hour east of Charlotte. Holliday sustained severe head injuries and remains in critical condition at the UNC Hospitals Trauma Center, though he opened his eyes Monday. State authorities said Crowder had not completed a boater education course, and it is unclear whether Holliday had, either.

To paraphrase the late, lamented Sgt. Phil Esterhaus (Hill Street Blues): Let's be careful out there.

This guy really hit the bad luck (and stupidity) DUI trifecta:

The 54-year-old New Mexico resident was booked last month on his seventh -- yes, seventh -- drunk-driving charge. This last one was a real doozy: He injured a local judge who was a passenger in a second car struck in a collision with Yazzie’s vehicle.

It gets worse: Yazzie is suspected of being involved in two hit-and-run accidents that evening before he struck the judge’s car.

And he had two teenage passengers in the car.

You just can't make this kind of stuff up.

This is how it works. First, some blowhard -- in this case, God help us, an elected U.S. Representative -- makes an outrageous and false statement. Then, when he is called on it, he denies he said it, and brands the media -- which simply quoted him -- as an "attack machine."

At sum, what is at work here, especially with the so-called Tea Party, is a variation on the big lie paradigm: prevaricate as loudly and as much as possible; if someone calls the truth of your statement into question, muddy the waters.

Contemptible.