This was the Board’s last major policy decision before it lost one member, which leaves it without a quorum to act.  President Obama has nominated Sharon Block and Richard Griffin to the Board.  Ms. Block is currently deputy assistant secretary of Congressional affairs with the Labor Department.  Mr. Griffin has served on the board of the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee since 1994 and is general counsel to the International Union of Operating Engineers.  Republicans may well block these nominations in an effort to prevent the Board from functioning at all.  More coverage here.

The first, Mehaffey v. Burger King involved a manager at Burger King who suffered a compensable knee injury while at work.  In the North Carolina Industrial Commission’s Opinion and Award, the Plaintiff was awarded retroactive attendant care fees for his wife, home modifications for a power wheel chair, a hospital bed, and transportation to doctors appointments.   Defendants argued that the Commission erred in awarding retroactive payments for attendant care because they were not pre-approved.  Shockingly, the Court agreed, even though the it recently held in the Boylan and Ruiz cases that pre-approval was not necessary for attendant care services.  The Court relied on the out-dated Hatchett case from 1954, which has been superceded by later Supreme Court decisions and legislative changes.  Perhaps the Court will agree to rehear the case, which appears to be a clear mistake.

Next, in Keeton v. Circle K, the Court affirmed the Industrial Commission’s Opinion and Award, which granted the defendants’ application to suspend benefits.  Keeton appealed the Commission’s decision, contending that she should be entitled to continuing benefits because she made a reasonable effort to return to work and there was no actual refusal to work.  The Court rejected these contentions, concluding there was sufficient evidence to show that the available manager position with Circle K fit within her physical restrictions, was “suitable employment,” and the Plaintiff made no effort to return to work at Circle K.  Thus, deeming the Plaintiff’s actions to be a voluntary refusal to accept suitable employment, the Court affirmed the denial of benefits under N.C. Gen. Stat. 97-32.

Introduction to the Jobs and the Economy section:

“Our nation has experienced profound economic change over the last three decades. Globalization, new technologies, and deliberate public policies shifted our economy from the production of goods to the production of knowledge and services. As millions of unionized factory jobs moved overseas, our nation lost a primary source of middle-class jobs for people without college degrees. Less-educated workers now have few options outside of non-unionized, low-wage service occupations.”

The paper states: “Unless Congress reauthorizes the current federal extension programs before the December 31st deadline, millions of workers and their families will be left without their primary means of support to buy food, pay the rent or mortgage, and cover their other most basic necessities.”

NELP’s paper also argues that extending benefits will help families as well as give the economy a leg up:  “Consistent with the prior research, [Wayne Vroman of the Urban Institute] found that the nation’s economy grew by $2 for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance during the latest recession, as unemployed workers spent their benefits in their communities at grocery stores, gas stations, and other retailers and service providers.”

Majority Leader Harry Reid has vowed to keep Congress in session in D.C. until federal unemployment benefits are renewed for the coming year, even if they have to work through the holidays to do so.

Introduction:

“The provision for extending the two-year time limitation for medical treatment is not often discussed, but it can make a profound difference for claimants who need medical care in the future. This paper discusses the development of this provision in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-25.1, as well as the substantive and procedural issues raised by the statute.”

The Supreme Court has granted review on these issues:

“(1) Whether deference is owed to the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s outside sales exemption and related regulations; and (2) whether the Fair Labor Standards Act’s outside sales exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives.”

The petition for certiorari may be viewed here.