When I worked as an assistant manager at Car X Auto Service, I developed the ability to cultivate excellent customer service skills. I believe in building relationships through strong interpersonal communication. I used these skills to form relationships with Car X customers from a range of professions. One bond in particular was with Mr. Bleakney who is a name partner at Bleakney & Troiani Ltd. and I was fortunate enough to secure an internship based off of my character and intellect. Bleakney and Troiani Ltd. is a Workers’ Compensation law firm located in Chicago, Illinois. The law firm is comprised of two named partners Mr. Bleakney and Mr. Troiani, as well as three other attorneys and five paralegals. The law firm was established in 1998 and has been successfully operating in downtown Chicago for the past twenty-eight years. However, many of the firm’s lawyers have been practicing Workers’ Compensation law in Illinois since 1984.
The attorneys at Bleakney and Troiani Ltd. have engaged in a great number of trials, settlements as well as appeals relating to work injury cases. Many of the claims deal with physical injuries such as disc herniation, knee and shoulder repairs, and permanent disability or even permanent wage loss because they have restrictions on the kinds of work they can do. Nearly sixty percent of the firm’s cases deal with back injuries that result in permanent work restrictions that caused the client to lose their job or get reassigned to a lower-paying position. The attorneys at Bleakney and Troiani Ltd. are highly skilled in their field, which is shown by their ninety-eight percent success rate. Although Mr. Bleakney and other attorneys are outstanding trial attorneys, nearly ninety percent of their cases are settled out of court. While workers’ compensation claims are the firm’s specialty, many times the injured client’s case often related to further legal action in the areas of personal injury, motor vehicle accidents, construction site litigation, Social Security Disability, etc. Therefore, the firm is well versed in coordinating both claims to get the best outcome for each client.
I believe it was Mr. Bleakney and Mr. Troiani’s intention to establish a small firm of competent lawyers whose sole purpose is to specialize in workers’ compensation claims. One of the reasons they chose to structure their firm in this manner without growing too large is to keep a personal environment in which the attorneys work closely and maintain the firm’s goal, which is to empower vulnerable injured clients. They wanted to be certain that their clients knew the attorneys would treat their case with care and work diligently to secure a successful outcome. The attorneys are there at every step from the moment the client requests a consultation until the court’s verdict is given or a negotiation is finalized. Even in the unfortunate event of the case being lost, the attorneys will work rigorously to appeal it multiple times until the client is satisfied with the outcome of their case.
As I began my legal internship at Bleakney and Troiani Ltd., I was given a number of basic tasks to start out. Mr. Bleakney was my direct supervisor and on the first day he explained that he wanted me to get an idea of how the firm operates. Once I understood the dynamic between the firm’s partners, the attorneys, and the paralegals, I would know how to best fit myself in the smooth-running machine that was Bleakney and Troiani Ltd. I began with clerical tasks such as answering phones, scanning, and data entry. Mr. Bleakney set aside some time to explain the tasks of reviewing and summarizing medical records. This was new to me since I had no previous experience in any area of the medical field. Yet, Mr. Bleakney simplified the material and showed me which facts are most often used in the preparation of assessing a case. Through this process, I learned how to grasp the most essential details of medical records that contain complex medical language.
Another important task that I performed on occasion was issuing and reviewing subpoenas. Initially, I thought this would be a grueling task because it seemed very official to me and I did not want to make an error that may negatively affect the case. However, one of the firm’s paralegals walked me through the process and it was relatively easy. The subpoena document was already typed out and I filled in the relevant information of who issued the subpoena, who it was addressed to, the time, date and location of appearance, as well as any items the witness should bring. Of course, after completing a subpoena, the paralegal would double-check my work to make sure everything was in order. I also had many interactions with new clients since one of my duties was to communicate with them as they began the process of using Bleakney and Troiani Ltd. as their choice of legal representation for their workers’ compensation claim. I will discuss an impactful client interaction in a later essay.
Another experience that was very important to me was my assistance in trial preparation. This portion of my internship was mostly done through shadowing, yet I learned a great deal about how attorneys put the case together like an intricate puzzle. I was able to witness Mr. Bleakney and another attorney use evidence, witnesses, case precedents, legal statues and more to compile a sound legal strategy. Mr. Bleakney would request documents and correspondence related to the case and I would provide it and then get to witness how the documents facilitated the broader picture of the case. To allow me to better understand how the law has been applied to past cases, I spent a lot of time researching and reviewing workers’ compensation case law and the rules of legal procedure. I really enjoyed reading past cases and trying to discern the law from the judge’s ruling.
Initially, I found it quite difficult to understand workers’ compensation laws and regulations due to the medical language. Mr. Bleakney would often give me updates in medical regulations and emphasize the importance of how these laws and regulations directly impact the field of workers’ compensation. For example, I recall reading an article about the Stimulus Bill signed by Obama in 2009. The Stimulus Bill amended HIPAA, which is known as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The significance of these changes was a stricter enforcement on those who failed to comply with the act. These changes would also lead to a greater need for litigation to deal with the violations. Reading and understanding laws and updates in regulations helped me to get a better idea of how workers’ compensation attorneys have to strategize within a specified legal realm and how vital it is to stay up to date with the laws. I believe in completing these tasks I demonstrated dependability and good judgment. I also learned to work under pressure, which in turn, gave me the tools to work efficiently in a timely manner.
Assignment 2:
Write a four to five page essay analyzing the problems with your organization from a policy perspective. Did you observe problems in how policy is made within your organization? Can you offer solutions to the problems you identify?
While I had a great experience at my internship and learned a lot, there were times when I had issues with the employees as well as the policy. At the workplace, when an employee has a manager, it creates a social hierarchy between the two. This division of power and status can often lead to problems. In my own experience, the division of power could not have been greater. Mr. Bleakney was a name partner at his law firm and I was an unpaid summer intern. Although I respect and value the opportunities that Mr. Bleakney gave me, there were times that I did not appreciate his decisions. Part of the problem is that I did not understand Mr. Bleakney’s perspective and he did not understand mine, therefore it caused us to make a lot of assumptions. While Mr. Bleakney advocated an open-door policy, it was difficult to bring up problems to him that concerned him.
The age difference between Mr. Bleakney and I was about thirty years and this resulted in different perspectives because of the generational gap. For example, one of my duties as an intern was to maintain the filing system of past and pending cases. While I was required to scan old cases into the computer, I was also told to reorganize the old cases in order for the attorneys to have easier access to the case files. I questioned the purpose of this process, since the attorneys would most likely not access the old cases. Moreover, if an attorney did need to access a file, it was digitalized and could be accessed on the computer. Mr. Bleakney was firm on his request and his reasoning was that on the rare chance that a case needed to be accessed, he preferred to have convenient access to the hard copy of the files.
Another issue that I had was with some of the paralegals. While everyone treated me kindly and fairly, the paralegals showed that their allegiance was more to their boss than the coworkers. It is possible that there was some resentment towards me since I had gotten the internship by forming a person connection with Mr. Bleakney. The secretaries knew that I did not have to go through an interview process because they never set up a job interview for me. The first time they saw me was when I began working. The hiring process for them was unlike mine and they had to work very hard to get their position. The reason I felt some tension between the paralegals and I is because on occasion, when I asked a paralegal for help or they saw that I made a small, fixable mistake, they would report it to Mr. Bleakney without telling me. When this occurred, it made me look bad because I would not be the one to tell Mr. Bleakney about my difficulties, but rather someone else made it seem like I tried to hide my inability or mistake. The simple solution to this problem would have been for them to inform me that it is their job to report any requests for help or mistakes to Mr. Bleakney. Therefore, I would either solve the problem myself or inform Mr. Bleakney myself, which would be more appropriate.
There were also instances where I saw the attorneys’ interactions with the firm’s partners. Sometimes, an attorney would offer their own strategy to a case or solution to a firm’s policy, but the partners would disregard the attorney’s suggestion and continue to implement their own strategy. The partners would also intervene on other attorneys’ cases and make them carry out strategies that were to the partners’ liking. In my opinion, although the partners own the firm and every case is important to the well being of the firm, this kind of stubbornness is limiting the firm. While the other attorneys do not have equal standing with the partners, they are highly trained attorneys that can offer unique perspectives and strong solutions. After all, since the partners chose to hire these attorneys and have guided their abilities for many years, the attorneys’ judgment should be taken into consideration.
In terms of a policy perspective, I did notice some policy problems within the law firm. For example, during my internship there was one time when a light bulb had gone out near the cubicle I was working in. The firm had recently let go of two secretaries that were near my workspace and therefore, I was alone in my section of the firm. One day, I decided to inform one of the paralegals that the light bulb needed to be changed since my workspace had dim lighting. The paralegal explained that there is a policy in place and a work order needs to be submitted to one of the other employees and then approved. In my opinion, I thought it would have been easier for me to just buy a light bulb and change it myself, which would be less time consuming and more efficient. However, in a firm or company there is always some form of bureaucratic red tape that restricts certain activities without the proper approval of a manager or superior. There was one paralegal at the firm that was more experienced than the other paralegals since she had worked there for several years. She was in charge of reviewing work orders and discussing them with the partners to get the financial approval for the work order. It just so happened that the week the light bulb went out, she was swamped with helping one of the attorneys with a case that was set to go to trial in the upcoming weeks. Therefore, a light bulb that was only irritating the intern was the least of her priorities.
I soon realized that this policy issue ran deeper. This paralegal was also in charge of many clerical supplies such as printer ink, computer paper, staplers, etc. The attorneys thought that giving the responsibility to a paralegal would be a good idea since they can coordinate with the other paralegals and then only bring a list of essentials to a partner for financial approval. However, the partners did not anticipate that this paralegal is not Superwoman and therefore, as she became encompassed with the upcoming trial, other duties fell by the wayside. Since the light bulb did not affect others in the firm, the paralegal did not feel like it was an actual problem. Therefore, the bureaucratic red tape made something very simple into a complex dilemma.
To this policy problem, there is a solution that I can offer, which may be more favorable to the firm. My solution would be for day-to-day clerical supplies to be automatically approved once a request is put in by anyone in the firm. Even if a beginner secretary believes that some supplies are needed, the order should be approved and they should receive the supplies they need. At the end of the week, upper management should review all of the processed orders and expenses. If there are issues regarding the type of stapler that was ordered, it can be addressed during the end-of-the-week meeting. These meetings are crucial because they will serve to restrict unnecessary purchases from being made in the future. For that week, the employees would receive the supplies they need and if there was overspending, it would only occur once and the new policy would prevent it from being repeated
While this might seem problematic in terms of cost, my solution would also include a spending limit for each order of $100. If there are any items that cost more than the limit, then they must go through a process of being reviewed and approved. In a short time, this method would effectively create a list of approved items that should be expedited and can be requested by anyone in the firm. By chance, if people have made frivolous orders, then they should have to pay out of pocket for trying to make the firm pay for nonessential purchases. For example, if an employee wants a better coffee machine, then that request would be considered nonessential. This solution would effectively eliminate any delays in ninety five percent of the office supplies. The problem with these delays is that they actually hurt the productivity of the employees. If an employee does not have basic office supplies or has poor lighting conditions, then their work suffers and the firm suffers. Also, these problems that affect employees’ work hurts the employee morale because they feel like no one appreciates their concerns.
Assignment 3:
Write a reflective essay that outlines and discusses the differences between the university as an institution of learning with the internship site as an opportunity for learning. In other words, there are various ways of learning about yourself as well as social, economic, political, and cultural realities. Your internship and traditional university courses offer the opportunity for comparisons and contrasts of these ways of knowing and learning. Write a five to seven page essay that explains the following questions: What types of things can you not learn on the job? What kinds of things can you learn on the job that you cannot learn in a classroom? What are the kinds of knowledge or skills should you master before you leave a university? In what ways are the campus and office different from each other and why types of relationships among persons are appropriate, discouraged, and demanded in these two types organizations? What did you learn about yourself from this internship?
There are many differences between universities as a learning environment and the workplace as a learning environment. An important difference is for people to understand the types of skills that are difficult for a person to learn on the job. A person should know certain skills and qualities that are required in order to do the job. If they do not have the prerequisites of the job, then most likely they will not get the opportunity to do the job. However, there are things that can be learned on the job, yet most of these are specifics that are unique to each company. Therefore, a person should have a base understanding of the field they are employed in. The theories, concepts and literature that are taught in school should be learned before entering the job. Once a person begins the job, they can then put these theories and concepts into practice. The reason for this is because there simply is not enough time for a coworker or employer to explain the background history, the complex concepts, the reasoning behind the theories and the several questions that an employee would ask throughout the learning process. Instead of spending time learning how to do the job, they should do the job and be productive.
For example, an attorney must graduate law school and pass the bar before they can practice law at a firm. Law school will train them to think as a lawyer, yet many specificities of practicing law will be learned once they are hired. As an attorney gets hired, the firm will train them on how to write motions, formulate trial strategies, etc. Employers need to be extremely efficient with their time and their employees’ time on the job. Usually, job training for employees is required and they may even be compensated for those hours. However, it is to the employer and the company’s advantage that they minimize the amount of time an employee needs to learn the job. The best kinds of employees are those that can hit the ground running by being productive on day one.
Additionally, the work environment provides no room for error, whereas the classroom allows students to make mistakes on assignments and still receive a ninety three percent, which is an A. Sometimes, teachers offer extra credit and even rewrites on assignments. At a university, students can get help on assignments from multiple resources. Students can always get help directly from professors. Students can ask questions about assignments and receive clear answers from teachers to minimize the workload and increase their chances of success. Teachers will even read paper drafts, which make it difficult to fail because students have all the resources and help they could ask for. Interestingly, teachers have this neat thing called a syllabus, in which nearly every assignment, quiz, test and expectation is clearly detailed and dated. This unambiguity allows students to simply complete assignments without having to deal with surprises and lack of instruction on the assignments.
Universities also have huge libraries with immense resources such as research assistants to help students. DePaul’s library provides its students with hundreds of online article sites, audios, encyclopedias, etc. There are also several programs that assist students such as the Writing Center. Nearly all of these amazing amenities and people are nonexistent in the workplace. Therefore, the workplace is very different and more difficult than the university environment.
Moreover, the types of relationships people have in school and work are distinct. In universities, the qualities demanded in any relationship are respect and a baseline level of good manners. The appropriate or encouraged qualities are being courteous and even helpful to others in classes or non-school related activities. The discouraged qualities may include disrespect, invasion of private space, harassment, plagiarism, etc. In contrast, many of the qualities that are demanded in a work setting are also appropriate. For example, in a law firm, demanded qualities are a high level of performance, meeting deadlines, working well with coworkers and clients, having patience, etc. These are demanded because they are essentials for being successful at work. Appropriate qualities are the same since an employer may want the employees to go above and beyond in their conduct. Qualities that are discouraged at work are disrespect, bad attitude, lack of discipline, disruptive, any kind of harassment, plagiarism, etc. Therefore, in the school environment, the expectations are lower and the discouraged qualities are fewer than in the workplace.
There are also many things that a person can learn on the job that cannot be learned in class. Experience is one of the main things that is hard to learn in a classroom setting. In a classroom, students often theorize possible problems or solutions without taking into account the realities of life and the unpredictable nature of work environments. At work, the decisions that a person makes are no longer hypotheticals in a classroom setting, but rather they are real-time decisions that affect people’s lives. In a law firm, simple mistakes can be detrimental to a case and result in financial and personal hardships for clients. Each employee is a representation of the overall firm and the firm’s reputation is its livelihood.
Another trait that is often learned in the work force as opposed to a university is perseverance. Some people may make the argument that students can learn perseverance in school by repeatedly failing and continuing their efforts. However, I would argue that the level of perseverance is much higher in the workplace than in school. As mentioned previously, the university is a setting in which teachers and tutors are paid to help students understand the material and succeed. The school environment is not as rigorous as the workplace in which most employers do not empathize with their employees’ failures. In a job, a person needs to know how to ask the right questions and team up with the right individuals to get the correct answers. A person must deal with the ambiguity at work of being his own detective. In school, following the syllabus essentially spells out the amount and type of work that a student has to do in order to succeed. Comparatively, at a job, an employee may not be explicitly informed of how to excel to the next position or promotion or what the timeline for that may be. Therefore, a person must display high levels of perseverance at work in order to achieve high levels of success. Comparatively, school does not require the same level of struggle in order to secure good grades.
An example from my internship that showed how experience is gained from the workplace is through my interaction with clients. During my first week as a legal intern at Bleakney and Troiani Ltd., an older couple walked into the firm and nervously asked me if they could have a consultation with Mr. Bleakney. The husband explained that he had recently been injured on the job and it was critical for him to receive monetary compensation for his injury since he was the sole provider of his family. They were skeptical that an attorney would fight for their interests because the husband’s company did not believe his injury was their fault and therefore, they were not interested in providing any compensation. I expressed their concerns to Mr. Bleakney, and he responded with confidence that their interests would be protected and the employer would pay for any wrongdoing on the company’s part.
A few weeks later, Mr. Bleakney requested that I join a client consultation meeting to get exposure to a client’s ongoing case. As I entered the conference room, I recognized the same older couple that was unsure about their legal matters weeks’ prior. A key difference I noticed immediately about the couple was their confidence. They felt empowered by Mr. Bleakney and deeply trusted his abilities. Mr. Bleakney could have taken advantage of the couple, but instead he chose to implement legal strategy to their benefit. I am driven by a strong sense of empathy and Mr. Bleakney’s professional conduct inspired me to pursue a career in law and to empower others with the same feeling of security that the couple received.
Through this legal internship, I received insightful mentorship from Mr. Bleakney. His knowledge of legal education, different fields of law and the employment process have been instrumental in my decision to pursue law and my understanding of how to navigate the industry. Mr. Bleakney and I regularly talked and he would explain how the law works and the valuable experiences he received throughout his legal career. He described how it was a difficult choice to leave the firm he worked at for several years to begin his own firm with a colleague. This was a pivotal moment in his life and there were many hurdles he had to overcome. The uncertainty was exacerbated by the fact that he had a wife and newborn to provide for at the same time. He explained the costs and the grueling hours required for a person to create their own firm. Due to Mr. Bleakney’s position as a business owner, he had the great responsibility of finding clients and building a base of clients that would sustain the firm financially. This caused Mr. Bleakney to stress the importance of networking to me. I learned the value of networking and have become dedicated to meaningful conversation that can develop into a personal or professional bond.
Furthermore, I developed the abilities to listen intently and focus on the finer details, which has allowed me to gain people’s trust. I realized that these skills are essential for a career as an attorney. More importantly, these are qualities that can help a person to improve the quality of their relationships and provide a more meaningful life. I am drawn to the legal profession because America’s legal establishment is a profound instrument of justice. My experiences have equipped me with a diverse set of qualities and have ensured my success in law school and in the field of law. Mr. Bleakney’s mentorship really impacted me and shaped my career goals. The internship exposed me to a highly competitive work environment and pushed me to develop beneficial skills and qualities.
In regard to the types of skills that a person should master in university, one should learn to be hardworking, detail-oriented and manage their time well. It is really important for students to gain these traits while in school because the stakes are not as high. A school environment is a much better place to learn these traits because it gives students the opportunity to make mistakes and try to improve themselves on their own time. In contrast, the stakes are much higher in the workplace and many times employers assume their employees have some of these baseline traits as they begin the job.
Assignment 4:
Write a five to eight page essay utilizing a number of academic sources that directly relates to your internship and incorporate some of the ideas from the reading with your internship experiences. For example, if you are involved in a local campaign in the area of fundraising, you may want to consult the text, Campaign Manager, for a broader understanding of the issues or examine articles, which deal with the larger problem of the role of money in campaigns. In short, place your internship experiences within in a larger academic argument or framework of analysis.
During my internship, I always felt sympathy for the injured workers that were seeking legal representation. Sometimes they were visibly injured and other times it was a concealed injury, yet they usually had a very depressing story about how the injury occurred and the negative consequences that have been a result of the injury. I began to wonder whether a large number of businesses were really creating unsafe working conditions and then simply refusing to compensate their employees for their injuries. Then, one day I read one of the firm’s old cases from 2004 and realized that sometimes employees fake their injury and try to commit fraud. While it was not apparent that the client was committing fraud, there were some facts of the case that seemed inconsistent to me. I recently found the same case on the website Find Law, which is accessible to public. I have completed a case brief of the case, which I have done many times throughout my internship. I will then examine the relevant parts of the case that stood out to me as problematic.
The court decided the case Ross v. Entenmann Bakery and Industrial Commission of Illinois in 2004. Mr. Bleakney represented the plaintiff Mr. Ross who was suing his employer Entenmann Bakery for the injury, as well as the Industrial Commission of Illinois for erring in its ruling against Mr. Ross. On April 4, 1996, claimant was working as a bakery cleaner and was poking garbage into a trash compactor when he experienced a sharp pain in his back. The claimant explained the work-related accident to his supervisor and went back to work. About three weeks later, the claimant visited Dr. Bartucci who specializes in orthopedic surgery. Dr. Bartucci conducted x-rays on claimant and found that claimant suffered a lumbar strain and he should return to work doing light activities.
A few weeks later on May 17, the employer videotaped claimant engaging in physical activities such as raking and scooping gravel, pushing a vehicle, driving, and lifting a heavy concrete slab. That same day, claimant visited Dr. Bartucci who preformed an MRI. The results of the MRI showed that claimant had a bulging disk at L3-4. On September 3, 1996, Dr. Bartucci recommended that claimant should not do work that would strain his back. Claimant decided not to work for six months, while he completed physical therapy and medical treatment. Then, on February 14, 1997, Dr. Bartucci told claimant that he could return to work and do light activities. However, the claimant did not go back to work. Finally, on May 14, 1997, the employer fired claimant because he did not return to work on February 14, 1997. Dr. Bartucci testified in court that claimant’s back pain could have been caused by the injury sustained when he was dumping the trash. However, Dr. Mercier testified that claimant could have returned to work by September 17, 1996. The Commission found that the claimant failed to show proof that he suffered injuries that were directly caused by his employment at Entenmann Bakery.
The main issue of this case on appeal was whether the Commission’s ruling that the claimant failed to prove he suffered injuries in the course of his employment with employer on April 4, 1996 is against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court found that the Commission’s ruling is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Worker’s compensation law holds that the burden of proof rests on the claimant who is bringing the suit against their employer. Furthermore, there must be a preponderance of evidence that clearly shows that their injury was the direct result of the duties of his employment. Therefore, regarding the claimant’s argument that his employer did not prove that he suffered an independent injury, the law states that it is not the employer’s responsibility to prove that this independent injury occurred. Moreover, the employer still put forth video evidence that on May 17, 1996, the claimant engaged in strenuous activity that could have further prolonged his back pain. Therefore, the Commission did not err in their judgment when they ruled against the claimant’s argument.
After analyzing the case of Ross v. Entenmann Bakery and Industrial Commission of Illinois, I found some case facts to be particularly odd. When Dr. Bartucci specifically told Mr. Ross that the x-rays showed that he suffered an injury and he should only engage in light physical activity, Mr. Ross did not heed his advice. Even though Mr. Ross had suffered a work injury, was unable to continue the same duties of his job, and intended to get compensation for work injuries he did something that contradicted each of these serious matters. On May 17, Mr. Ross was videotaped raking and scooping gravel, pushing a vehicle and even lifting a heavy concrete slab. I find this very unusual because it begs the question whether Mr. Ross took his injury claim seriously. Mr. Ross had expressed his concerns about his injury worsening to his physical therapist, yet failed to mention that he aggravated his work injury by doing physical labor at home.
Mr. Ross disregarded Dr. Bartucci’s advice once again on February 14, 1997, which was nearly a year after the initial injury. Dr. Bartucci believed that Mr. Ross was able to return to work and engage in light physical activities. Mr. Ross chose not to return to work at this point. After three months, the employer believed he had cause to fire Mr. Ross and let him go. I believe that Mr. Ross should have trusted his doctor’s opinion and went back to work. He would only be doing light work, which should be much easier than the difficult physical chores that he does at home. This unwillingness to return to work for several months shows a lack of commitment to his work or to his workers’ compensation claim. If he chose to get compensation for his injury, then he should have at least followed his doctor’s orders. Instead, it seems as if he used his injury as an excuse to stay out of the workplace, while still receiving a financial payout for the continuous pain that the injury had caused him. While I do not believe that Mr. Ross committed fraud, on many occasions he did not act in the interest of his own workers’ compensation claim. He made many poor judgment calls, which are his right, yet they preclude him from receiving compensation because he is contributing to his injury and interfering with the truth of his original claim.
From the analysis of the firm’s former case Ross v. Entenmann Bakery and Industrial Commission of Illinois, I began to consider the motivations of people that bring workers’ compensation lawsuits against their employers. This case taught me that even people who are injured at work decide to use their injury as an excuse and take advantage of their employer. I also considered how this affected employers who receive workers’ compensation claims from their employees. I became curious about what steps employers and business owners can employ to protect themselves against a fraudulent workers’ compensation claim.
According to a 2015 poll by Employers Holdings, Inc., it was found that more than one in ten small business owners believed it was possible that “one of their employees would commit workers' compensation fraud by faking an injury or illness in order to collect benefits” (“More than 1” 1). These fraudulent crimes are a serious matter because it can slow down overall productivity, cause the businesses’ insurance rates to rise, and cause valid claims to be dismissed (“More than 1” 1). I believe that these employers are exposed to fraudulent claims since one in five business owners feel that they may be taken advantage of because they cannot identify the fraud (“More than 1” 1).
The first step that employers should take in fighting fraudulent workers’ compensation claims is to increase the chances that the suspicious employee’s co-workers or friends will tip off the employer about the potential fraud (“More than 1” 2). It is important for the employer to create an understanding with their employees that they should report any suspicious activity related to a workplace injury. Employees may adhere to this if it was made clear that injury claims affect the financial strength of a workplace. If there are enough injury claims, the company may have to downsize and some employees will lose their jobs. Also, if a fraudulent claim was exposed, it will cause the employer to be paranoid and they may take actual claims less seriously (“More than 1” 1). These are incentives that would allow employees to understand that a workers’ compensation claim not only affects the employer, but it can also harm the employees. There are also indicators that can stand out as being related to a fraudulent claim, such as “having a permanent total disability claim with total medical costs of less than $500 over a 12-month period” (“More than 1” 2). The employee who is committing fraud may believe this is a strategic move because they believe that the claim amount is small enough that no employer would contest it by involving an attorney. The employee thinks it is quick and easy money, yet they do not realize that most medical bills related to a serious medical injury and multiple visits to doctors will most likely cost thousands.