Inside the Fight for Injured Workers' Rights: How Legal Advocates Are Shaping Safer Workplaces
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
You're reading Entrepreneur Asia Pacific, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media.
Workplace injury law is no longer just about compensation. It is about systemic accountability and the evolving role of a work injury attorney as a personal lawyer and labor advocate. Choosing the right legal experts can be daunting, especially during injury recovery, but it is a pivotal step in providing justice for those without legal expertise or resources to take on large insurance companies.
Holding companies accountable for workplace injuries sets a bar for other companies regarding compliance and brings about systemic change. Holding employers and businesses accountable by providing proper treatment and compensation changes the workplace dynamic and balances the scales between employees and employers.
Commonly Mishandled Work Injuries
Slips, trips, and falls are the most common mishandled work injuries that can result in permanent physical damage and lost wages. These incidents can lead to fractures, sprains, and head injuries that require medical treatment but often go unnoticed until it is too late. If the injuries are not evaluated immediately, workers lose access to workers' compensation benefits, which is unfortunately common.
Overexertion is another injury that is often overlooked. These injuries can be caused by carelessness or a lack of training on how to correctly pick up and handle heavy items in the workplace, leading to pulled muscles, strained ligaments, and more serious back and neck injuries.
How Legal Advocates Shape Safer Work Spaces
Legal advocates are shaping safer workspaces by providing expert advice and support to workers navigating workplace safety concerns. They are experts in this field of law and know what needs to be done immediately after an injury to assist injured workers.
There is generally a stack of confusing paperwork following a workplace injury, and a skilled attorney can help navigate the paperwork, file necessary forms, and seek legal remedies when a worker's safety is in question. Attorneys often do not charge fees unless the victim wins their trial, easing the financial burden of the injured and allowing them to focus on recovery so they can get back to their livelihood sooner. Legal advocates can also raise awareness about workplace safety issues from a larger platform than that of an injured worker, highlighting the need for systemic change in the workplace.
How the Gig Economy and Remote Work Complicate Traditional Worker Comp Claims
The gig economy and remote work complicate traditional workers' compensation claims by not establishing a clear link between the work and the injury. Gig and remote workers are often considered independent contractors, excluding them from workers' compensation. This makes it challenging to prove injuries occurred during work hours.
WorkInjuryRights.com
WorkInjuryRights.com is a team of Florida attorneys who share the goal of helping people of all walks of life with their legal matters. This includes personalized representation for workers injured on the job in any accident. The firm represents clients throughout Florida and provides free consultations to understand the situation better and provide the best care possible.
Firms like these are changing the landscape of worker rights by providing the expertise and resources needed to fight big insurance claims. They are also beneficial in enabling injured workers to get back to their lives and focus on recovery while they handle the minutiae of litigation and settlements.
Workers' compensation attorneys are an invaluable asset for receiving deserved benefits, but their role is about more than receiving compensation. Holding employers and companies accountable to their workers is a critical aspect of what injury attorneys do, forcing a systemic change in the workplace. By setting fair standards for both employee and employer, workers' compensation cases set the bar for fair compensation and create a safer workplace.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lenders do not owe millions compensation over car finance, Supreme Court rules
Lenders have avoided potentially having to pay compensation to millions of drivers, after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes, but some motorists may still receive payouts. The UK's highest court ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act 'altruistically' in the customers' interest. The decision comes after two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments, paid by buyers to dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021, without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found that three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. On Friday, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest, and that the Court of Appeal was wrong. But they said that some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said it will confirm by Monday whether it will consult on a redress scheme, while one of the three drivers said he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling. Handing down the judgment, Lord Reed said the car dealer 'was at all times pursuing its own commercial interest in achieving a sale of the car on profitable terms'. He continued: 'In reaching the opposite conclusion, the Court of Appeal failed to understand that the dealer has a commercial interest in the arrangement between the customer and the finance company. 'The court mistakenly treated the dealer as acting solely in the interests of the customer once the customer had chosen a car and agreed a price.' The FCA, which intervened in the case, previously said it would set out within six weeks whether it would consult on a redress scheme. But a spokesperson said after the ruling that it would confirm whether it will consult on any such scheme by 8am on Monday 'to provide clarity as quickly as possible'. Lord Reed said the Supreme Court had decided to deliver its ruling on a Friday afternoon, outside of trading hours and after the markets had closed for the weekend, to avoid the risk of 'market disorder'. The three drivers involved in the case, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars worth less than £10,000 before January 2021. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, the car dealers made a profit from the sale of the car and received commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, and the three drivers took legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission because of the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error', while the FCA claimed the ruling went 'too far'. In their 110-page judgment, the five Supreme Court justices found that 'an offer to find the best deal is not the same as an offer to act altruistically'. They said: 'No reasonable onlooker would think that, by offering to find a suitable finance package to enable the customer to obtain the car, the dealer was thereby giving up, rather than continuing to pursue, its own commercial objective of securing a profitable sale of the car.' However, the judges upheld a claim brought by Mr Johnson under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair'. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid the £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. The Supreme Court ruled he should receive the commission and interest, which Mr Johnson told the PA news agency totalled 'just over £3,000'. Mr Johnson said that he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling, which he said 'does not sit right with me'. He said: 'I am obviously happy that my case was successful, but for so many other people that were also overcharged, I just don't like the message it sends to the UK consumer.' He said the ruling 'sounds like it's fine to secretly overcharge customers for commission'. A Treasury spokesperson said it would work to 'understand the impact for both firms and consumers'. They said: 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. 'These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.' Close Brothers said it was 'considering' the judgment and 'will make any further announcements as and when appropriate'. Kavon Hussain, founder and lawyer at Consumer Rights Solicitors, which represented Ms Hopcraft and Mr Wrench, said it was 'disappointing' the Supreme Court did not fully uphold the Court of Appeal's ruling. He said: 'The Supreme Court ruling supports our view that lenders had acted unfairly in millions of car finance deals. 'This should now pave the way for the biggest compensation payout to motorists in British legal history. 'We will fight to get consumers the money they are owed by these lenders.'
Fast Company
2 hours ago
- Fast Company
The economy is limping, not booming, and the costs of Trump's tariffs can be seen all over this week's data
If you're interested in understanding the current state of the U.S. economy and corporate America, and what the rest of the year might look like (and who isn't), this was the week for you, with five days packed full of earnings reports, policy announcements, and economic data. And although the picture that emerged from all that information was arguably more fuzzy than sharp, a couple of things do seem clear: The economy is limping, not booming, and the impact of tariffs is finally being felt. The most important data point of the week came on Friday morning, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the U.S. economy created just 73,000 jobs in July. More important, the BLS also said that the jobs numbers for May and June had been revised dramatically downward: The May number went from an estimated 144,000 jobs created to just 19,000 jobs, while the estimate of jobs created in June fell from 147,000 jobs to just 14,000. Even assuming that the July number is correct (and that it won't eventually be revised downward as well), that means that the U.S. economy created just 35,000 jobs a month, on average, over the past three months, compared to 168,000 jobs a month last year. Employers pump the brakes on hiring The current job numbers are not quite as terrible as that comparison suggests, since a drop in immigration and the continued aging of the population means that the economy needs to create fewer jobs in order to stay at full employment. (Unemployment in Friday's report was still just 4.2%.) But the jobs number does suggest that, at the very least, businesses are being far more cautious about adding jobs. And that's only confirmed when you look at the details of the jobs report: The U.S. lost manufacturing jobs in each of the past three months, while essentially all of the private-sector job growth since May has come in healthcare and social services. Not all the news this week was bad: On Wednesday, GDP growth in the second quarter came in at a solid 3%. That was a big jump from the negative number we got in the first quarter, even if it still means GDP grew in the first half of the year at a below-average 1.2%. Average hourly earnings are up 3.9% year-over-year. And earnings reports gave us blowout earnings numbers from Microsoft and Meta, good numbers from Apple and Amazon, and, perhaps most interestingly, excellent numbers from Mastercard, which suggests consumers are still continuing to spend. Still, even here there were reasons for concern, particularly with that 3% GDP number. Private purchases—which are generally thought of as a good measure of domestic demand—were up just 1.2% year-over-year. Consumption rose 1.4%, which is respectable but not impressive. Business investment—particularly investment in everything other than computer equipment—actually fell. And spending on imports tumbled sharply. The AI boom is fueling massive investment in technology and computer equipment, which is boosting overall GDP. But while Big Tech is roaring, much of the rest of the economy seems to drifting in the doldrums. Normally, that would make a strong case for the Federal Reserve to have cut interest rates at its meeting this week (as President Donald Trump has been berating Fed chair Jerome Powell to do). The problem for the Fed is that even as the economy seems to be stalling, or at least slowing down, inflation has shown no sign of going away, and in fact may be picking up. In addition to all the other data this week, we also got the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index —the Fed's preferred measure of inflation—which jumped 0.3% in July and is now up 2.6% year-over-year, well ahead of the Fed's 2% inflation target. So the Fed is looking at a weak job market and stubbornly high inflation: not a great place to be in. The elephant in the room The big complicating factor in all this, of course, are the tariffs that Trump has imposed, paused, rolled back, and now is preparing to impose again. To begin with, the tariffs—and how businesses have responded to them—have a lot to do with those big swings in GDP growth we saw in the first half of the year. Imports spiked in the first quarter as businesses loaded up on inventory before the tariffs hit, helping shrink GDP. They then plummeted in the second quarter as businesses worked through that inventory, giving GDP an artificial boost. The tariffs are also eating into company profits—this week, Black and Decker, Ford, and Procter & Gamble all said that tariffs had hurt their earnings. And they're starting to feed into inflation: Adidas said this week that it may hike prices to deal with higher costs, and P&G said it would be raising prices on 25% of its products. The impact of tariffs could also be seen in this week's economic reports: Goods prices (the prices that tariffs would have the most direct impact on) were up 3% year-over-year. The uncertainty surrounding Trump's tariff policy—and where rates are going to end up—has also made it difficult for companies to plan and to invest. And they've made consumers—already unhappy with inflation—more cautious, which you can see in consumer sentiment numbers. The current University of Michigan consumer sentiment index, which was released on Friday, shows that consumer sentiment, while better than it was in April, is still broadly negative, down 7% from a year ago, and consumer expectations of the future are even worse, down 16% year-over-year. All of this arguably helps explain why so many businesses seem to have been in a holding pattern: Caution is a logical response to uncertainty. Trump removed some of that uncertainty Thursday night when he issued a new executive order imposing new tariff rates on almost every country in the world, rates that are scheduled to go into effect on August 7. The rates are in most cases 15%, and often higher. (A few countries got a 10% rate.) That's better than the original tariff rates that Trump had imposed on what he called Liberation Day. But they still represent a massive hike in import costs from last year. To be sure, nothing we saw this week says that the economy is headed for disaster. But, at the very least, this week's numbers make it very hard to be bullish (except, of course, about Big Tech). The U.S. is stuck in neutral, and neither the Trump administration nor the Federal Reserve are doing much to get it back in gear.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Millions set to miss out on car finance compensation after Supreme Court ruling
Lenders have avoided potentially having to pay compensation to millions of drivers after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, went to the UK's highest court to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments paid by buyers to car dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021 without the motorist's fully informed consent were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. But in a decision on Friday, justices at the UK's highest court overturned the Court of Appeal, though some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April the decision was an 'egregious error', while the Financial Conduct Authority intervened in the case and claimed the ruling 'goes too far'. The three drivers, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, opposed the challenge. Giving a summary of the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, Lord Reed, one of five justices who heard the case, said they had allowed the lenders' appeals. He said: 'Each party to the three-cornered arrangement – the customer, the dealer and the finance company – was engaged at arm's length from the other participants in the pursuit of their own objectives.' However, the judges upheld a claim brought by Mr Johnson under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair', awarding him the commission amount of £1,650.95 plus interest. In their full 110-page judgment, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen said that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest. They said: 'An offer to find the best deal is not the same as an offer to act altruistically.' Following the ruling, a Treasury spokesperson said: 'We respect this judgment from the Supreme Court and we will now work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers. 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. 'These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.' In a statement, Close Brothers said: 'Close Brothers is considering the Supreme Court's judgment and will make any further announcements as and when appropriate.' In a letter to the Supreme Court in December last year, the FCA said almost 99% of the roughly 32 million car finance agreements entered into since 2007 involved a commission payment to a broker. Mr Johnson, Mr Wrench and Ms Hopcraft all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars, all worth less than £10,000, before January 2021. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, with the car dealers making a profit from the sale of the car and receiving commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, with the three drivers taking legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. Ms Hopcraft, then a student nurse, bought her replacement car in 2014 through an agreement with Close, which paid the car dealership £183.26 in commission. Mr Wrench, described by the Court of Appeal as a 'postman with a penchant for fast cars', entered into two hire-purchase agreements for an Audi TT coupe and a BMW 3 Series, with FirstRand, in 2015 and 2017, respectively, paying hundreds in commission in total. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid the £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission due to the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lady Justice Andrews, Lord Justice Birss and Lord Justice Edis said last year that while each case was different, 'burying such a statement in the small print which the lender knows the borrower is highly unlikely to read will not suffice'. But in Friday's Supreme Court judgment, the five justices said: 'No reasonable onlooker would think that, by offering to find a suitable finance package to enable the customer to obtain the car, the dealer was thereby giving up, rather than continuing to pursue, its own commercial objective of securing a profitable sale of the car.' They continued: 'We conclude that, to the extent that the Court of Appeal's judgment and the respondents' case depends upon the recognition of a fiduciary obligation of undivided loyalty on the part of the dealer when selecting and negotiating a finance package for the customer, they are wrong.'
