The Work Immigration Enigma

Immigration into the United States, particularly through channels that aren't deemed "legal" has always been an emotionally charged issue.

When I was practicing workers' compensation defense law the majority of my cases seemed to (I don't have firm statistics - purely anecdotal) involve mono-lingual, hispanic workers without proper documentation of their authorization to be in the United States.

And since I practiced in California, particularly Southern California, which encompassed the lower half of the Central Valley (breadbasket to the world for many crops), and Ventura County (the only place in the world that produces three crops of strawberries a year), these folks were usually farm workers.

These farm workers were particularly suspect to abuse, as I came to realize after years of deposing them. It seemed that the particular plight of these folks generally followed the same path. Certainly some endured less abuse than others, certainly some set themselves up for more abuse than others - but clearly due to their socio-economic demographic they represented a pattern of exploitation upon them that most of us don't experience, let alone endure.

The Los Angeles Times last month ran a series on the delicious produce we enjoy in United States grocery stores that is grown in Mexico and imported. You've seen these vegetables and fruits - perfect in size and color, just as tasty if not more so than locally grown, and available for purchase "out of season."

But the produce, despite U.S. corporate promise to the contrary, is grown and harvested using abusive labor practices akin to slavery: farm workers trapped in barbed wire fenced camps - escapees are beaten and confined to solitude; children as young as 10 years old forced to toil up to 12 hours per day to earn less than $20 per day to help feed their families while they subsist on a stack of tortillas for the day; labor camp bosses withholding wages from workers to "pay" for overpriced goods sold at camp "stores" to the laborers leaving nothing for the workers to take home; squalid living conditions where multiple families share a roof and not much more without running water or electricity.

Read that series, and you will understand why the United States is such an enticing destination despite the risks of travel, "coyotes," immigration, habitation; all to work the lowest level of the labor chain, at the bottom of the wage scale.

These people were not only subject to abuse in their home land, but also in the United States in the various social systems, not the least of which is workers' compensation.

When I was practicing in the 1980s and early 1990s one of the more common schemes was to solicit mono-lingual immigrant hispanic workers via "cappers" who were paid to bring in "patients" to medical facilities and made promises to the workers of free medical care and payment of cash for their troubles.

Targeting immigrants for more abuse...

The scheme wasn't about inflating medical treatment, or skimming attorney fees from settlements (though those activities invariably occurred) - the real meat of these schemes was to generate medical-legal bills in all areas of medical specialization on a single claim. The old neck bone is connected to the back bone is connected to the chest bone is connected to the hip bone is connected to the leg bone, etc. These came to be known as "skin and contents" claims. The reports from the specialists conducting the medical-legal evaluations all came from the same clinics, and the bills came from the same billing facility.

The reports all looked and read the same, and when I would ask a claimant in deposition about all of this activity they were completely clueless. There was more than just a few occasions where the claimant would deny ever having any claim of psychological complaint, for instance, despite what the medical report would say.

Try as we might with United States laws, there always seems to be a steady tide of people that are willing to risk everything to escape the literal hell of their native countries - being illegal in the United States is more comforting than being legal in the home land.

So laws get passed to ease this tension: amnesty, drivers licenses, labor. Law makers try to accommodate this class of people because they know (and I think even the most conservative, ardent objector to immigration liberalization know as well) that reducing immigration violation can't be accomplished without host country reform of its own laws and practices.

In the workers' compensation context there always seems to be an issue of whether or not a worker without proper immigration documentation can receive benefits. In general, most rulings have come down on the side of the injured worker for purposes of basic benefits such as treatment and indemnity, but any benefit that would entail re-employment, such as vocational rehabilitation services, is not available as that would be to sanctify violation of U.S. laws.

There are U.S. Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court cases pending to determine if workers who used false Social Security numbers to gain employment can be prosecuted for workers' compensation fraud, even if they haven't filed claims for benefits.

Florida has a law on the books that broadly provides for prosecution for fraud if one uses false documentation, not otherwise defined or specified. The law is in the workers' compensation statutes, but has been interpreted to apply outside of the work comp realm.

Last year, the Florida 4th District Court of Appeal upheld an interpretation of Florida Statutes Section 440.105(4)(b)9 as allowing charges to be brought against a garbage hauler who had been using a fake Social Security number, even though he had never filed an injury claim.

Arizona had a similar law that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2012.

Francisco Brock, also known as Armando Lopez-Brock, filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the nation's highest court on Dec. 26, arguing that Florida's treatment of the presentation of a false Social Security number as a 3rd degree felony under the state Workers’ Compensation Law violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"According to Brock [the Florida 4th District Court of Appeals decision from which this appeal to the US Supreme Court is taken], any and all undocumented workers can be charged and convicted of workers’ compensation fraud, a felony, for using any false identity to obtain employment, even though there is no workers’ compensation connection," he wrote in his petition.

The state has until Jan. 29 to respond to his arguments in the case, now titled Brock v. State of Florida.

In the meantime, the Florida Supreme Court has another, similar, matter pending before it called Hector v. State of Florida.

Hector Jordan, Jordan Hector, had worked for Waste Pro USA, along with Brock. Both men were arrested in a raid on the company back in 2012, and both were charged with violating Section 40.105(4)(b)9.

Both Brock and Jordan won on motions for dismissal at the trial level, but those were reversed by the 4th DCA. The Florida Supreme Court refused to take Brock's case, which is why it is before the U.S. Supreme Court, but has not yet made a decision on Jordan's case.

Jordan's petition is virtually identical to Brock's, and it asserts that the 4th DCA's decision is in conflict with a 2008 ruling from the 1st DCA in Matrix Employee Leasing v. Hernandez.

In the Matrix case, Leopoldo Hernandez admitted that he had used a false Social Security number for the purpose of obtaining employment and that this conduct violated Section 440.105(4)(b)(9).

However the 1st DCA said Hernandez was entitled to workers' compensation benefits after he got hurt on the job because there was no evidence Hernandez had violated Section 440.105(4)(b)(9) "for the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits."

Though both Brock and Jordan cited Matrix to the 4th DCA, the court said that it was inapplicable to their situation since they were involved in a criminal case, and the 1st DCA analysis of Section 440.105(4)(b)9 had been limited to how the statute applied to the denial of coverage in a workers' compensation case.

We'll ultimately, of course, see how the courts deal with Brock and Jordan - the point is that there is still a second class of human in the work force: those who desire to escape deplorable conditions that, though outlawed, still continue because there's a market (the United States principally) for the goods and services that those without "documentation" produce.

There's been a lot of debate about immigration reform, and President Obama has taken heat lately for proposing executive action due to stalemate in Congress. It's a complicated issue, no question about it.

But workers' compensation should not be about immigration, legal documentation or anything other than whether one gets hurt on the job.

Yes, workers' compensation is a political football - certainly that's what contributes to its needless complexity. But work injury protection laws were not intended to regulate immigration status.

And that's the sad part. There's a large population that comes to this country to escape impoverishment, escape child labor, escape indentured servitude, only to find that there are vultures on the other side of the border happy to exploit their fears, insecurities and ignorance.

Wishing For Comp

It always is interesting how business complains so much about workers' compensation, but how employers clamber to invoke its exclusive remedy characteristics when they feel the heat of civil litigation.

It's even more interesting when a business wants to deflect liability to other companies on the grounds that the injured were the other companies' employees.

A U.S. district court judge in Texas denied a motion by BP Products North America for partial summary judgment in a case stemming from an alleged chemical release over a number of days at a Texas City BP refinery in November 2011.

315 of the workers were contractors and subcontractors at the BP refinery at the time of the chemical release. They’re part of a group of more than 500 plaintiffs who have brought various tort claims against BP in the case of Samuel Charles Boyd, et al. v. BP Products North America.

The ruling said that BP carried the burden of proof on all elements of a workers’ compensation defense; it would have to prove that each contractor plaintiff had workers’ compensation insurance coverage and that the injuries sustained were work-related. Proving that the injuries were work-related was where BP’s motion failed, the judge wrote.

“Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment included extensive evidence that the Contractor Plaintiffs were covered by workers’ compensation insurance,” the ruling states. “However, Defendant provided the Court with no evidence that the Contractor Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were work-related.”

Texas City BP refinery explosion aftermath.

The suit against BP generally divides the plaintiffs into two groups: workers, who were either employed at the BP refinery or a nearby Dow Chemical plant; and “community members” who lived near the plant. According to reports, the plaintiffs in the case are seeking more than $1 billion in damages. In February 2013, BP completed the sale of the Texas City plant to Marathon Petroleum.

In Texas workers' compensation insurance is elective.

Mid last year, the Texas Tribune ran a series, "Hurting to Work." The series used vignettes and anecdotes to demonstrate how the lack of a workers' compensation mandate victimized the state's workers, and in particular those most vulnerable: low wage, manual labor workers.

That series drew a lot of criticism from the business community because, they said, statistics were either incorrect or were misinterpreted. Labor generally praised the series for drawing attention to a sad aspect of the Texas economy.

What the series really did was to highlight how workers' compensation can be an effective social safety net for injured workers and can adequately spread the risk of damaging liability.

And the bottom line is that business can't have the proverbial cake and eat it too - there is an election in Texas that can't be taken lightly: be insured for work comp, or don't. And if not insured then prepare to face the longer term liability of paying for a defense and potentially still losing and having to pay damages.

In the meantime there's a broad swath of the workforce that is left without any expedient remedy (regardless of adequacy).

The BP case illustrates this conflict brilliantly - facing a huge liability the company wished the matter was the exclusive province of workers' compensation, or at least that its contractors and subcontractors were thusly responsible.

In the meantime the victims, workers and other people in the community that incurred injuries or illnesses from the spill, are left to cope on their own and probably won't ever recover physically or financially from the disaster.

Mandated Burden

I have a great idea - let's make the burden on physicians in the California workers' compensation system even greater by requiring additional documentation on requested medical treatment, even before it is rejected by either utilization review or independent medical review.

This would force physicians to just stick to the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule and there would be nearly instantaneous control over medical treatment requests!

Just think - fewer out of schedule recommendations, fewer experimental prescriptions, lower treatment costs, lower billing, review and containment expenses...

... and even fewer physicians willing to put up with such nonsense.

Yet, the California Division of Workers' Compensation in its latest revision to the MTUS regulations is proposing just such a regulatory change.

The proposed update to the MTUS, its first revision since 2009 would require doctors seeking to deviate from the schedule’s recommendations to provide research to back up their requests.

When doctors request treatment for a worker that deviates from the schedule’s recommendations, the new provision would require that physician to attach with the request “a copy of the entire study or the relevant sections of the guideline containing the recommendation he or she believes guides the reasonableness and necessity of the requested treatment that is applicable to the injured worker’s medical condition or injury.”

Doctors that wish to go outside the MTUS basically are already required to support such treatment requests with evidence to avoid denial up the UR and IMR food chain. What does making this requirement a part of the law have to do with efficient, efficacious or adequate medical treatment?

Further, because the DWC updates the schedule only once every five years, but medical research is ongoing, there will be an increasing body of evidence outside of the state’s recommendations thus increasing the burden on physicians just to comply with the regulation.

Physicians aren't paid to support their treatment requests under the present fee schedule - I can't imagine any would go the extra mile with the regulatory mandate as proposed. It would be much easier, and financially safer, to ignore the medical interests of the injured worker regardless of whether there would some better treatment options.

Or just get out of industrial medicine altogether.

And, even if a doctor went that extra mile and supplied the studies or evidence, that does not mean it will pass muster at the UR or IMR level. If DWC wants doctors to support their requests, and doctors do so, then there should be a concomitant obligation on UR/IMR to approve the proposed treatment.

The category of cost containment services is receiving the dubious distinction of being the fastest growing expense category as measured by the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau. Adding more documentation to the mix adds more time to the UR/IMR reviewer's job, and more money needed to pay utilization-review doctors.

This is a bad idea, plain and simple. California is already the most regulated, most burdensome workers' compensation system in the United States, and probably all of the world. Heck, there are still parts of SB 863 that have yet to be implemented more than 2 years since that legislation upended the system.

This part of the proposed update is unnecessary over-regulation.

The division is accepting comments on the proposal until 5 p.m. Tuesday. Written comments can be emailed to dwcrules@dir.ca.gov or faxed to Maureen Gray at 510-286-0687. Commenters can also mail their input to Maureen Gray at the Department of Industrial Relations, P.O. Box 420603, San Francisco, CA 94612.

The Line

Going and coming.

This dichotomous term of art is probably the most active description in all of work comp. Not only does it evince bipolar conceptualization, but the contradiction in terms is the basis for interesting judicial results.

In Schultz v. WCAB, No. B255678, Craig Schultz worked as a technical drafter for JT3, a provider of testing, tactics and training support for the U.S. Air Force and Navy. His office was in Building No. 1440 at Edwards Air Force Base, a 308,000-acre facility in the Mojave Desert, near Lancaster, California, with roughly 200 other JT3 employees.

He arrived for work on the morning of May 24, 2012, in his Honda Civic, and used a security pass provided by JT3 to gain access to the base through its North Gate.

Schultz was about one mile past the gate when he began experiencing pain related to his diabetes and attempted to pull over. However, his foot hit the gas pedal instead of the brake, propelling his car into a ditch. The car flipped several times, and Schultz was severely injured.

He filed a claim for benefits, which was contested. The company's workers' compensation insurance carrier, The Hartford, argued that the going and coming rule barred liability since Schultz was not at his office at the time of injury but rather was still traveling to it.

Schultz argued that the coming and coming rule didn't apply but rather the "premises line rule" (that a worker's ordinary course of employment will commence when an employee enters the employer’s premises) applied - the work was on a secure Air Force base which required special access privileges, Schultz was required to use his personal vehicle on premises as a consequence rather than employer or military provided transportation, and there were multiple employer locations on the base to which Schultz could be (though he wasn't) required to travel to.

The trial judge agreed with Schultz, finding Schultz sometimes used his vehicle for the benefit of his employer, which precluded application of the "going and coming rule."

The Hartford appealed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board which reversed. The panel concluded an employee's occasional use of his personal car for work purposes does not render an employer liable for any and all injuries the employee incurs in the course of commuting to and from the worksite.

The 2nd District Court of Appeals on Tuesday concluded that the undisputed facts of the case demonstrated that "the premises line rule, rather than the going and coming rule, applies."

1) It was undisputed that he and other employees of JT3 would perform work at multiple locations on the base.

2) The base "is a secure location," and JT3 controlled Schultz’s access to the base since it was responsible for getting him a security pass.

3) It was undisputed that Schultz's crash happened one mile inside the North Gate of the base, which meant his accident "occurred on JT3’s premises, and not while Schultz was commuting."

4) "[R]egardless of his means of travel to Building No. 1440, Schultz would have been on the secure premises of Edwards owing only to his status as a JT3 employee."

Can't tell if this is coming or going...

The court reasoned that Schultz's employment "necessarily contemplated that he use the roads on Edwards," as there was no evidence of any other means available to him to reach Building No. 1440, and so, based on the application of the premises line rule, Schultz was within the course of his employment when he got hurt.

Commentators for the story on WorkCompCentral didn't express surprise at the ruling - it seems that the case didn't really provide anything novel or interesting from a legal standpoint.

But it does demonstrate something that I find troubling: though the court uniformly states that the employer, JT3, made the claim decisions and arguments against liability, that is not the case.

The defense posturing was all done by the insurance carrier - The Hartford.

And what is disturbing to me is that The Hartford certainly knew that there was liability - as I mentioned none of the commentators (mostly lawyers on both sides of the fence) said the ruling was not surprising because it was simply stating the law as they understood it to be.

No, it was The Hartford, which gladly had been taking JT3's premium dollars in exchange for the promise to take care of JT3's employees that may occasion an unfortunate situation at work, that was determined not to let any of those dollars out of its control.

The vitriol I'm sure to receive from the insurance community is going to be terse, I'm sure - the rationale is that once a claim is made then the carrier's financial obligations TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS requires that it take all necessary steps to ensure that any money received in premium be retained as earnings.

Bullshit.

This was a case of clear liability. The Hartford had the obligation, and it knew it had the obligation, to provide benefits to Schultz (and, ergo, the policyholder, JT3). That it was able to pull the wool over the eyes of the WCAB in specious argument is testament to The Hartford's good lawyers - but I'm sure they also knew that ultimately it was a losing argument.

The sad thing is that the courts substitute the employer's good name for the carrier's bad actions making it seem that the employer was calling the shots - and we all know that is not how things happen, and in fact the employer pretty much loses all control over a claim once it goes to the carrier.

Sure the case represents nothing novel in a legal sense. Likewise it presents nothing novel about how workers' compensation is administered: financial goal overrules social mandate.

Unfortunately, the only loser is the injured worker, who had to wait two and a half years to find out that in fact benefits are due. In the meantime I'm sure Schultz has gone through hell and back trying to figure out how to pay the bills, how to get treatment, how to carry on with his life.

The Audit Joke

Police officers and firefighters in California and Arizona in separate cases are alleging violations of the Racketeers and Influenced Corruption Act against third party administrators York and Corvel and the municipalities those companies serviced.

In California the defendant cities are Rialto and Stockton. In Arizona its Phoenix.

The California complaint say the companies "routinely and improperly chose to hurl frivolous and legally unsound roadblock after roadblock to wrongfully deny care" to injured first responders.

The plaintiffs believe that a "pattern of practice" at the defendant companies together with the involvement of certain personnel for the defendant municipalities created an enterprise to fraudulently deny benefits in violation of RICO statutes.

Michael P. Doyle, a founding partner of the Doyle Raizner law firm, which filed both complaints, told WorkCompCentral the Arizona case already survived a motion to dismiss and he anticipates going to trial by the middle of summer. The California case is just getting started, he said.

The defendant cities paid the administrators based on a flat fee per claim and a percentage of savings from utilization-review and bill-review services that were provided, creating an incentive for improper conduct, the plaintiffs claim.

The alleged pattern of denying legitimate claims allowed the defendants to "lower the liability of the city, while at the same time maximizing the TPA's revenues (and allowing the TPA to maintain and obtain contracts with other public entities based on their 'outstanding' financial performance at the expense of public servants)."

The defendant employers conspired with the defendant administrators and "denied claims in hopes that some plaintiffs will simply not continue to seek benefits under workers' compensation entirely," the complaint says. The complaint also alleges the defendants ignored California law regarding pre-existing injuries that are aggravated by a new incident, as well as statutes creating a presumption of compensability for certain conditions suffered by first responders.

This attitude needs correction.

Representatives for the various defendants would not comment on the cases to WorkCompCentral reporter Greg Jones because of the pending litigation or were not available prior to deadline.

But Jones reports that California Division of Workers' Compensation audits found claims shops run throughout the state by both firms had numerous violations, including late and unpaid indemnity benefits, but in all but one case, the fines were waived because the shops scored high enough to escape financial penalties under the division's profile audit review program.

York was fined $117,036 after the DWC identified 213 violations during a review of claims processed through its shop in Oxnard. Violations included 26 cases in which the company underpaid indemnity benefits by a total of $84,458.42, according to the DWC's 2010 audit report.

The DWC identified 45 violations at York's shop in Fresno in 2010.

The same year, the DWC said it uncovered 80 violations at Corvel's shop in Sacramento, including $2,147 in unpaid indemnity benefits on nine claims.

In 2011, the DWC identified $92,615 in unpaid indemnity benefits on 26 claims from Corvel's shops in Camarillo, Rancho Cucamonga and San Diego. The proposed fines, all of which were waived, for 128 violations at the three adjusting locations were $78,790.

York in the same year had unpaid benefits of $31,562 on 28 claims audited at its shops in Upland, Valencia and Concord. The proposed penalties of $51,115 for 157 auditing violations uncovered were all waived, according to the DWC's 2011 audit report.

In 2012, the latest year for which audit results are available, the DWC said York had unpaid indemnity totaling $7,347 on claims handled by its El Dorado Hills office. The audit also identified 52 cases of failing to comply with the requirements to provide notice to the injured worker of the QME/AME process. York faced penalties of $30,175 for 117 violations, but the fines were waived.

There are two things that come readily to mind.

First, the DWC audit system in California just doesn't work. That injured workers have to resort to seeking civil judicial intervention for redress that the state should be taking care of is sad testament to the respect the state gets.

Kind of like a parent that threatens taking the cell phone or Internet away from the teenager for misbehavior - puh-leeze! Oh! That's a threat...

Second, maybe there's an intentional manipulation of the system by the defendant, or maybe there's a dysfunctional culture that allows such transgression without consequence (see first observation above).

Sadly, what will happen is that the RICO cases will end up in some sort of anonymous settlement, there won't be any penalties or fines from the state auditors, there will be no change to the audit process, and the practices will continue, albeit via some other employers and other administrators.

The heavy penalization system that was so criticized by employers, carriers, TPAs and other payers (Labor Code section 5814) for unwarranted cost and expense to the system, was castrated by SB 899 ten years ago because the audit system was in place and was supposed to do the job of enforcement.

Clearly that assumption has proven incorrect.

Enforcement by the state is a joke.

I can pretty much guarantee that if the state had any cajones and actually enforced the penalties instead of waiving them all (except for one as noted) the culture would change, the behavior would change and there wouldn't be any RICO challenges surviving the initial pleading stage.

The ball is in the state's hands - the audit and penalty system is administrative in nature and doesn't need legislative backing to change. All the state has to do is NOT waive penalties.

Until then, expect injured workers to seek civil redress for performing the state's obligation.

We're Back

The teaser line for the movie trailer Poltergeist II is almost universally known: "They're ba-ack."

It's now 2015, I'm back. Legislators are back. Judges are back. Workers are back. Business is back.

2014 was tumultuous for California work comp and in a few other states as well.

Heck, it was tumultuous for me!

In comp we had court challenges to many aspects of California's historic "reform" bill, SB 863, most of which are still pending.

In my life I had Dad's death and Mom's placement in a memory care facility.

In comp we saw continued increase in premium expense for employers despite promises of savings and uncertainty (WorkCompCentral's "Word on the Industry" for 2014) in nearly every aspect of California's system.

In my life I saw a kid graduate from college and enter the "real world" with nearly as much uncertainty in her future as workers' compensation.

They're ba-ack.

Some business relationships in work comp were challenged and the news was filled with prosecutions of white collar crime.

My life had business relationship challenges too, but thankfully no relations with criminals, though I was stalked a couple of times by some injured workers (and not exactly sure why).

Interest rates remained near record lows, and the stock market hit record highs. Bond yields remain at near all time lows.

Gasoline and oil nearly halved in price as Saudi Arabia sought to re-establish monopoly control over that market by forcing out new production efforts through economic warfare.

And it appears that some rogue nations are bent on other types of terrorist activity and warfare as we saw with monumental computer hacking, despicable head hacking, and Congress' ambivalence on TRIA.

Insurance rates, and premiums, along with medical expenses, continue to rise, though at a much more tepid pace than the last decade.

The economy has sucked back most of the unemployment roll since the 2008 recession, but left in its wake a large population of the unemployable.

The jobs that are coming back have more to do with controlling automation (eliminating a dozen or so jobs for each machine-monitoring job created) which is great for competitive business, but tough on those workers lacking education or skills in robotics.

There's speculation that even previously staid jobs, such as lawyers or legal clerks reviewing records, may end up automated putting pressure on white collars as well.

And workers' compensation is still here, trying to adapt to this radically changing world.

In California Professional Employee Organizations can no longer be self-insured.

Lien filers anxiously await a decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on the activation fees from SB 863.

Fee schedules for copy and interpreting services still require finality.

The vague $120M supplemental slush fund is also awaiting finishing touches.

Over on the other side of the nation a question remains as to the constitutionality of Florida's system.

New York is still grappling with sluggish implementation of fee schedule reform and challenges to authority in the system.

Illinois can't quite figure out what it wants out of "reform," Oklahoma is trying to show the rest of the nation that "opting out" into a regulated civil system can work, Texas is debating rules on its Independent Medical Review system, and the rest of the nation is busy legislating out anything other than a specifically witnessed, "old world" style of injury.

Sometimes I wonder if I'll have anything to write about. I mean, honestly, what can be so interesting about workers' compensation?

Then I read the daily headlines: a move to generic medications, challenges to 100% PD award where the worker can't leave the house, objections to fees that haven't changed in nearly 20 years, moribund legislatures ... and more.

All this turmoil, all this anxiety, and WorkCompCentral columnist Peter Rousmaniere opines that work comp is shrinking...

Yep, I'm back because the more things change, the more they stay the same: there's lots to write about, lots to debate, lots to reflect upon.

Welcome to 2015!

Rudolph's Claim

Rudolph the red nosed reindeer

Filed a workers compensation claim

Cause he felt that his red nose

Was mostly from the work it came

All of the other reindeer

Laughed at him and called him names

They made fun of poor Rudolph

So held his head in shame

Then one foggy Christmas Eve

Santa called to say

Rudolph I deny your claim

I am not the one to blame

Rudolph took Santa to court

Showed the judge medical ev’dence

Santa’s insurance company

Then put Santa out of bid’ness

*************************

And that, children, is why there really is no Santa Claus...

Shame on Bowzer