The long answer: Some attorneys are demanding 25% of an injured worker's checks from the moment he walks in their door. We think that is taking advantage of the workers' comp claimant. That is completely unfair. We don't take cases if we cannot add value to them -- and we don't expect to get paid until we do. You should never have to give up any of your money (which you need to live on) until the lawyer has done something for you. And filing a couple of form letters with the Industrial Commission isn't enough to earn a fee. In fact it is virtually unheard of for the NCIC to award a fee of more than 25%.

As a general rule we think it is improper for a lawyer to take a cut of your weekly check unless she actually went to a hearing to get the checks started, or if he kept the checks going at a hearing. But if an attorney asks you to pay them from the minute they represent you, or if they write a couple of letter and make some phone calls to get checks started and then want 25% of your money forever, you should seriously consider whether they are in it for your best interests or just for your money.

In the case the injured worker wanted to use her receipt of Social Security Disability as evidence that she couldn't work. Unfortunately it failed because she had listed multiple ailments as the basis of her SSD claim.

The standard for getting SSD is the ability to perform substantially gainful activities. This is different than the standard for workers' comp, which is the capacity to earn wages in a competitive labor market. The comp system also has the variation of suitable employment which holds that a high-earning worker doesn't have to take a low-paying job after their injury.

We think the Court of Appeals has left the door open for the right claim to come along. To succeed I think the award of SSD must be solely on the basis of the same injury as the workers' comp case. Also I think it will be more successful for an injured worker with a high pre-injury average weekly wage. We wouldn't argue necessarily that the injured worker couldn't find any work -- just that work paying so little as to be below the substantially gainful activity threshold would be, by definition, not suitable employment. Finally, it would be ideal if the Administrative Law Judge had used a vocational expert at the Social Security hearing.

No guarantees, but it's a case I'd take to hearing.

1. Insurance company adjusters who take advantage of an injured workers' unfamiliarity with the law.


2. When the Industrial Commission rules against an injured worker on a technicality (I believe a tie always goes to an injured worker).


3. Workers' Comp attorneys who let adjusters run all over their clients.


4. Attorneys who do not provide educational materials to their clients to help them understand what is going on in the case.


5. Workers' Compensation attorneys who claim they are "aggressive, experienced, determined, etc.," but never take tough cases to hearings.