Workers' Comp Plan Goes Against Conservative Ideals
By Robert Huskey - March 28, 2013
Editor's Note: I am fascinated by this Editoral by attorney Robert Huskey which I found published on The Tennessean this morning. Mr. Huskey is clearly an applicants' attorney and is now concerned about the Tennessee workers' compensation system possibly becoming a separate judicial system with appointed judges like we've got here in California.
He's concerned about non-elected workers' comp judges favoring the political persuation of the official who appointed them, and this means to him a pro-business, pro-insurance company advantage which will work to the detriment of the injured workers.
This is not what happens right now in California with our "liberally construed in favor of the applicant" workers' compensation system replete with liberal judges. Thus, Huskey evokes the conservative ideal of small government and democratic fairness; we in society should not push injured workers on the swings of the political party currently in power. He reveals to us that he works in a pro-business state, and as a conservative he is concerned about fairness to injured workers.
I love it. I would like to encourage my readers to read Robert Huskey's thoughts. I am republishing his work here with his permission.
I’m a conservative and therefore try to support candidates who are conservative; however, I’ve discovered to my dismay over the years that, too often, a politician’s conservative principles are only pertinent to that politician when they are seeking votes or it supports what they want to do, but when what the politician wants to do is inconsistent with those principles, the principles are ignored.
An excellent example is Gov. Bill Haslam’s proposed legislation on workers’ compensation. In evaluating this legislation, let’s look at a couple of pertinent conservative principles normally espoused by the governor: He favors smaller government and less bureaucracy and public election of judges. We know this, because during his 2010 campaign we heard about smaller government and less bureaucracy, and just since he’s been in office there has been a big push to change the manner of appointment of appellate judges because it doesn’t follow the Tennessee constitutional principle of publicly electing judges.
However, as we have read recently in The Tennessean, the governor has offered an extensive revamping of the workers’ compensation law in Tennessee. Workers’ compensation deals with compensating employees for injuries they sustain in the course and scope of their employment. Under the governor’s plan, there will be a new bureaucracy set up to administratively handle workers’ compensation cases, which will be under the control of the governor.
The governor personally will select and appoint a department head or czar to oversee workers’ compensation who will have the authority to hire, and where he deems appropriate, fire judges who try workers’ compensation cases. Now, let’s give some objective analysis to such a proposal and see if it’s consistent with those conservative principles we talked about above!
Does it support less government and less bureaucracy? No; quite the opposite. It creates an additional bureaucratic department that will increase the size of the executive branch. Is it consistent with the conservative principle under our constitution of having elected judges try cases in Tennessee? No. It provides that worker’s compensation cases will be tried by appointed judges. Not only will the judges be appointed, but the bureaucrat who appoints those judges is not elected. And on top of that, these workers’ comp cases will be taken away from those trial-level judges who are elected by the public in Tennessee.
Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee
It doesn’t take much scrutiny at all to tell that this proposal is not based upon true conservative principles, but rather designed to help the insurance companies and businesses at the expense of the injured employees.
I do have to admit there is one point made in support of this legislation that is accurate: That it will provide predictability. Of course, it will. If a worker gets injured and his case comes up for trial, potential recovery will be greatly limited, because it’s going to be tried by a political appointee whose job is dependent upon him complying with the administration’s evaluation of fair decisions. So much for our judges being elected by the people and reflecting the people’s interest.
Before it’s too late, I implore all of you to encourage your elected representative to closely scrutinize this bill for what it really is: an intention of the administration to prevent injured workers from being fairly compensated when they are hurt on the job.
Robert Huskey is an attorney with 40 years experience in private practice and lives in Manchester, Tennessee.
| 
__May11th2017.gif)
.gif)