This is the first post by guest writer Jon Rehm of Rehm, Bennett & Moore in Nebraska, who will be appearing on our site from time to time.
Today I received a call from a union official at a local packing plant asking me if the company could force injured employees to apply ice and heat to their injuries during break.
I answered it depends on whether the company or the employee receives the predominant benefit of the icing. The predominant benefit analysis is the framework for deciding “donning and doffing cases.” In donning and doffing cases, the issue is whether taking off and putting on safety equipment before and after a shift as well as during meal and break times should be paid. Continue reading







From time to time, headline stories appear in the national news about workers claiming compensation benefits for “mental stress” injuries. Most recently “former professor claims years of mistreatment by colleagues cause mental health breakdown – denied benefits”. These stories often add fuel to the fire that workers are filing claims that do not have merit. Since objective standards such as x-ray and MRI do not exist in work-related mental injury cases, establishing causation has always been problematic, provoking some skepticism from the courts.