1/16/2017: Andrew Stephenson to Co-Chair ABA Transportation Megaconference

F&P principal Andrew Stephenson will once again be one of the program chairs for the 2017 American Bar Association Transportation Megaconference.  The conference will be held March 8-12 at the Sheraton in New Orleans.  Andrew will be participating in the program introduction, as well as moderating “the Top Ten List 2017” panel which will provide an update on the most significant legal devleopments impacting trucking companies and litigation over the last two years.

The Transportation Megaconference was the first and continues to be one of the leading continuing education programs for those involved in all aspects of trucking company-related litigation, providing attendees with practical, nuts-and-bolts approaches to transportation litigation, a national forum to learn from the experts, and an opportunity to meet, network, and exchange ideas with industry leaders and outstanding industry lawyers, executives and those involved in the decision-making process.

Sponsored by the Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section (TIPS) Commercial Transportation Litigation Committee, Transportation Megaconference XIII marks the thirteenth in a series of highly successful biennial programs and presentations on trucking and motor carrier related issues. Building on a tradition of excellence over the last 24 years, the program planners have again assembled some of the nation’s leading trucking litigation experts, from inside and outside trucking companies, to address the wide variety of subjects which influence the daily operations of trucking business and impact critical litigation decisions and activities.

From the Keynote address and popular Top Ten and Corporate Counsel Roundtable segments to the Bench-Bar exchange, Litigation Management, Courtroom Expectations, Large Verdict, and handling the High Exposure/Subjective Complaint case segments, the Megaconference always presents the best and brightest. This year, additional segments include Technology and Science in the Courtroom, On-Board Cameras, and a novel segment on Google Self-Driving Technology. This TIPS National Program, again held in New Orleans, is an industry event not to be missed.

12/20/2016: “Exempt” is Over – A Review of the New Regulations for “Overtime-Ineligible” Employees

As featured in Behind the Wheel, a quarterly publication of the Maryland Motor Truck Association.

http://bit.ly/2hphS5G 

Written by Franklin & Prokopik attorneys Albert B. Randall, Jr. and  Matthew George Kuspa

Editor’s note: On November 22, 2016, just as this magazine issue was being printed, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily halts implementation of the overtime rule discussed below. The injunction, coupled with the outcome of the U.S. elections, places the rule in doubt. Until such time as the injunction is lifted, the December 1 implementation date is temporarily suspended. 

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued new overtime regulations which are currently scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2016.  In Maryland alone, an estimated 79,630 currently nonexempt employees (1.9% of the working population) will become entitled to overtime under the new regulations.

Under the old regulations, executive, administrative, or professional employees (EAPs) were generally “exempt” from overtime if they performed certain job duties (the “duties test”) and were paid a salary (the “salary basis” test) of not less than $455 per week (the “salary level” test).  Highly compensated employees (HCEs) were exempt from overtime if they were paid at least $100,000 and passed a “minimal duties” test, meaning that they customarily and regularly performed at least one of the exempt duties of an exempt EAP.

Under the new regulations, the DOL will now refer to nonexempt employees as “overtime-protected” or “overtime-eligible,” and exempt employees will be referred to as “overtime ineligible” or “not overtime-protected.”  The new regulations do not make any changes to the duties tests for either EAPs or HCEs, however, the salary levels will be raised substantially for both overtime-ineligible EAPs and HCEs.  Finally, in meeting the new standard salary level for overtime-ineligible EAPs, employers will be allowed to include nondiscretionary bonuses and make “catch-up” payments as needed.

Raising the Salary Levels

The DOL has set the new “standard salary level” for EAPs at the 40th percentile of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage Census Region in the United States.  Based on data from 2015, the standard salary level will increase from $455 per week to $913 per week (or from $23,660 per year to $47,476 per year), effective December 1, 2016.

The salary level for HCEs will also change, and will now be set to the 90th percentile of full-time salaried workers nationally.  Based on census data from 2015, the new salary level for HCEs will be $134,004, also effective December 1, 2016.

Part of the purpose of tagging the salary levels to census data is to allow for “automatic updates” to the salary levels for EAPs and HCEs.  The first update to the salary levels will take effect on January 1, 2020, and salary levels will be updated every three years thereafter.  The DOL will calculate the new salary levels based on data from the second quarter of the year preceding the update, and will post the new salary levels at least 150 days prior to each update (or August 4th of the preceding year).

Bonuses and “Catch-Up” Payments

Employers are now permitted to count nondiscretionary bonuses, incentives, and commissions toward up to 10% of the standard salary level for overtime-ineligible EAPs.  Examples of such “nondiscretionary” payments include bonuses that are announced to employees to encourage them to work more steadily, rapidly, or efficiently (in other words, bonuses tied to productivity or profitability), and bonuses designed to encourage employees to remain with the employer.  Examples of “discretionary” bonuses include unannounced bonuses or spontaneous rewards for specific acts.

In order to be counted toward the standard salary level, nondiscretionary bonuses must be paid at least quarterly.  In some situations, the bonuses may be less than expected and an EAP’s weekly salary plus bonuses for the quarter will not equal or exceed one-quarter of the yearly salary level.  In such a case, the DOL will permit employers to make a “catch-up” payment no later than the pay period after the end of the quarter to raise the employee’s salary to the standard salary level.

Motor Carrier Exemption

Section 13(b)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, also known as the “motor carrier exemption,” continues to provide an overtime exemption for employees regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT).  Drivers who transport goods across state lines and certain other employees whose duties may affect the safety of motor vehicles in interstate commerce generally fall within DOT jurisdiction and are not entitled to overtime under FLSA, even if they also work on intrastate routes.  The new regulations do not affect the motor carrier exemption.  Under Maryland law, state overtime law does not apply to employees regulated by the Department of Transportation.

Options for Employers

Employers may increase the salary of newly overtime-eligible employees to keep the employee exempt from overtime.  This may be a good option for employees who have salaries slightly under the new exempt salary level.

Employers may also choose to keep salaried employees that will now be overtime-eligible at the same rate of pay and pay overtime as needed.  There is no requirement that employers convert employees from salaried to hourly in order to pay overtime.  Employers may instead calculate an employee’s rate of pay by dividing the total pay for the employee in any workweek by the total number of hours actually worked, and use that rate to pay the salaried employee overtime.

Preparing for the Change

In preparing for the change on December 1, 2016, employers should consider:

  • Identifying employees who are at or near the new standard salary level,
  • Preparing early by having salaried employees who are newly “overtime-eligible” track their time in anticipation of the change,
  • Developing policies for tracking time for employees who work remotely and/or are issued a company computer or cell phone, and
  • Evaluating bonuses to determine whether they are “discretionary” or “nondiscretionary” and reviewing and adjusting their compensation schemes and policies accordingly.

Private employers may also refer to guidance issued by the DOL on the final overtime rule (available at https://www.dol.gov/).  Whether employees are “exempt,” “overtime ineligible,” or “not overtime-protected,” employers will have to pay much closer attention to employee compensation and overtime work as the regulations continue to update.

What does this mean for employers?  For now, the overtime rule will not take effect as planned on December 1, 2016 but it could still be implemented at some point in the future. Employers may continue to follow the existing overtime regulations until a final decision is reached, but should be aware that there is a possibility that the rule could be enforced retroactively, and should carefully track the hours of employees who will be affected by the changes.  Those employers who have already reclassified employees have the option of proceeding forward with implementation of the new rules.

12/8/2016: Redefining “Retaliation”: How to Modify Post-Injury Drug-Testing and Reporting Policies as OSHA Expands Its Reach

As seen published on page 18 of the Oct/Nov issue of CLM Workers’ Compensation magazine – http://theclm.wcmagazine.epubxp.com/i/757431-oct-nov-2016

Written by Franklin & Prokopik attorneys Albert B. Randall, Jr. and  Matthew George Kuspa

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) has issued new regulations for reporting workplace injuries which are currently scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2016.  The apparent overall purpose of the new regulations is to promote the prompt, detailed, and accurate reporting of workplace injuries in order to eventually improve the ability to identify and mitigate workplace hazards and prevent workplace injuries and illnesses.  To that end, the regulations modernize injury data collection by requiring employers to report work-related injuries and illnesses electronically.

The new regulations also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees for reporting work-related injuries or illnesses.  A prohibition on retaliation already existed under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the “Act”), however, OSHA’s new rule also incorporates this existing statutory prohibition on retaliation into an updated regulation.  In doing so, OSHA has expanded its reach to encompass almost any employment practice, policy, or procedure, whether active or passive, that can be construed as deterring employees from reporting injuries and illnesses.

OSHA has also taken on a new role as an enforcer without requiring employees to report violations.  In OSHA’s view, these sweeping changes are justified to ensure the accuracy of employers’ records and reports, and further the overall goals of the Act.  As a practical matter, in the context of workers’ compensation claims, claims professionals will need to understand the effect of the updated legal requirements for employers in order to effectively and efficiently resolve claims.

Modernizing Injury Data Collection

Under previously existing regulations, employers were required to complete an individual OSHA Form 301 “Injury and Illness Incident Report” for each injury.  Prior to the rule change, submissions could be made by paper, and employers were allowed to use an “equivalent form” to Form 301, as long as the form contained the same information as required by Form 301.  (For example, employers could often submit a workers’ compensation “report of injury” or other corresponding form to OSHA in lieu of a Form 301.)  Employers were also required to maintain a Form 300 “Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses,” and submit an annual Form 300A “Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses.”

Under the new regulations, all information must be electronically submitted to OSHA.  Establishments with 20–249 employees must submit certain injury data from OSHA Form 300A annually by March 2nd of the following year, and employers with 250 or more employers must submit certain injury data from all three forms annually by March 2nd of the following year.  (These requirements will “phase-in” by 2019, with grace periods in 2017 and 2018.)  All establishments, regardless of size, must submit any requested information from any forms upon request by OSHA.

OSHA intends to publicly disclose the information obtained from these forms on its website.  This will allow the public to review information from each establishment and evaluate workplace safety and health at each location, and will doubtless be used for a variety of purposes.  (No personally identifiable information, e.g., employee names, treating physicians, etc., will be collected or posted on the site.)

With regard to workers’ compensation claims, the electronic submission of injury data will undoubtedly result in duplicative paperwork and, accordingly, inaccuracies between records.  In comments to the final rule, OSHA admitted that “because workers’ compensation forms are for a specific purpose and can vary by state,” they may not fit OSHA’s reporting requirements.  Since each establishment will develop its own system for recording workers’ compensation reports of injury in conjunction with  OSHA’s new requirement for electronic reporting, employers and claims professionals will have to work together to ensure the accuracy of the record of injury.

Preventing Retaliation Against Employees

As noted above, the Occupational Safety and Health Act prohibits retaliation against employees who file complaints with OSHA.  The new rule does not change the substantive obligations of employers, but rather gives OSHA a new method of enforcement.  Previously, for OSHA to act, it had to rely on a complaint from an employee prior to bringing suit.  Under the new rules, OSHA may now bring suit against an employer even if the employee did not file a complaint.  OSHA contends that this method of enforcement helps to ensure the accuracy of employer injury and illness logs.

“Retaliation” is any materially “adverse action,” that is, any action which would deter a reasonable employee from reporting a work-related illness or injury.  Retaliation is usually thought of in the context of disciplinary policies.  According to OSHA, improper disciplinary policies are those which discipline (or threaten to discipline) an employee in response to a reportable injury (or a claim for workers’ compensation) when no legitimate workplace safety rule has been violated.  Examples of such discipline can include termination, suspension, reduction in pay, reassignment to a less desirable position, work restrictions, harassment, progressive disciplinary policies, and automatic poor performance evaluations for injuries.

Employers also may not engage in “pretextual disciplinary actions” against employees, including selectively disciplining an employee with a reportable injury for violating a safety rule while not disciplining other employees who violated the same rule and did not report injuries; or selectively disciplining employees for violations of vague work rules to “work carefully” or “maintain situational awareness.”  Employers should review and revise workplace safety rules to require or prohibit specific conduct.

Under the new regulations, employers must inform employees of their right to report work-related injuries and illnesses free from retaliation.  Employers can comply with this requirement by posting OSHA’s free workplace poster from April 2015 (available at http://www.osha.gov/).

In furtherance of this prohibition on retaliation, employers must also develop “reasonable” procedures for reporting work-related injuries or illnesses, eliminate blanket post-injury drug testing policies, and review and revise employee incentive programs.

Developing “Reasonable” Reporting Procedures

Under the new rules, employers are now required to develop reasonable procedures that do not deter or discourage employees from reporting work-related injuries or illnesses.  According to OSHA, examples of unreasonable reporting procedures include reporting policies with several steps or difficult requirements that deter employees from reporting injuries (or which are otherwise “unduly burdensome”), and rigid “prompt-reporting requirements” that result in employee discipline for late reporting.

OSHA appears to take particular issue with prompt-reporting policies, citing examples of injuries and illnesses which develop over time, have latency periods, or do not initially appear to be serious enough to be recordable.  In one case, an individual developed pain due to work-related repetitive motions beginning one week earlier.  The employee received a final warning for failing to timely report an injury.  OSHA found this policy unreasonable because it did not “allow for reporting within a reasonable time after an employee realizes that he or she suffered a work-related injury or illness.”

In order to comply with the new regulations, employers will need to revise reporting procedures to be simple and easy for employees to follow, and to allow employees to report injuries within a “reasonable” period of time after discovering that an injury has actually occurred.  As a recent example, in July 2016, OSHA settled a case that was brought against U.S. Steel for maintaining an immediate reporting policy.  As part of the settlement, the employer adopted a reporting policy that required employees to report injuries “as soon as reasonably possible, but in no event later than leaving the plant or 8 hours after becoming aware of the injury or illness, whichever is earlier.”

Eliminating Blanket Post-Injury Drug-Testing Policies

Under the new regulations, OSHA considers blanket post-injury drug testing to be “a form of adverse action against employees who report injuries or illnesses.”  Going forward, employers should “limit post-incident testing to situations in which employee drug use is likely to have contributed to the incident, and for which the drug test can accurately identify impairment caused by drug use.”

OSHA contends that drug tests should only be conducted if there is a “reasonable possibility that drug use by the reporting employee was a contributing factor to the reported injury or illness.”  As examples, OSHA states that it would likely not be reasonable to drug test in the event of “a bee sting, a repetitive strain injury, or an injury caused by a lack of machine guarding or a machine or tool malfunction.”

Issues, of course, will arise when the circumstances surrounding the accident are unclear.  For example, in the above OSHA example of “an injury caused by a lack of machine guarding,” would it be “reasonable” to drug test an employee if it was unclear whether the employee was responsible for removing the safety guard?  Did drug use “likely” contribute to the incident?  In the absence of clear guidance on the issue, it’s likely that some employers will choose not to drug test employees in situations where drug use was in fact a contributing factor, but impairment could not be detected.

Employers should also refrain from drug testing “in a way that may be perceived as punitive or embarrassing to the employee,” as this is also likely to deter reporting.  What this means specifically is anyone’s guess, as the act of drug testing alone could be considered by many to be embarrassing.

Reviewing and Revising Employee Incentive Programs

OSHA has also raised concerns about the “retaliatory nature” of employee incentive programs, which “have the potential to discourage reporting of work-related injuries and illnesses without improving workplace safety.”  Examples of inappropriate policies include:

  • Periodic prize drawings for employees who did not report injuries,
  • rate-based incentives rewarding workers for low rates of injuries, and
  • incentive programs based on teams of workers remaining injury-free, leading to peer pressure on employees not to report injuries.

The new regulation does not constitute a blanket ban on employee safety incentive programs, but “programs must be structured in such a way as to encourage safety in the workplace without discouraging the reporting of injuries and illnesses.”  OSHA encourages employers to develop safety incentive programs which “promote worker participation in safety-related activities.”  For example, safety incentive programs may reward employees for correctly following legitimate safety rules, identifying hazards, or participating in investigations of incidents, or other incentives as listed in OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Program guidance materials.

Conclusion

Perhaps in conjunction with OSHA’s new role in enforcing violations, the penalties for violations have recently increased on August 2, 2016.  The current maximum penalty for “Serious,” “Other-Than-Serious,” and “Posting Requirements” violations has now increased to $12,741 per violation.  Failure to Abate violations have increased to a maximum of $12,741 per day beyond the abatement date, and “Willful or Repeated” violations may now garner a maximum penalty of $124,709 per violation.

Given the substantial changes to the definition of “retaliation,” employers should revise their policies to reflect the updated regulations.  Meanwhile, claims professionals need to be cognizant of the updated employer requirements and work with employers to ensure that claims are reported timely and accurately, and that drug-testing and claims reporting are conducted in a lawful manner.

Albert B. Randall, Jr. is the President of Franklin & Prokopik, P.C., and can be reached at arandall@fandpnet.com.  Matthew George Kuspa is an associate with Franklin & Prokopik, P.C.,  and can be reached at mkuspa@fandpnet.com.

 

11/23/2016: Texas Federal Judge Issues Nationwide Injunction Blocking Department of Labor Overtime Expansion Set for December 1, 2016

Judge Amos L.  Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has issued a nationwide injunction halting a new overtime regulation set to take effect December 1, 2016. The new regulation would have required employers to pay overtime to employees earning salaries of $47,476 per year, doubling the previous threshold of $23,660 set forth in 2004. The injunction temporarily stops implementation of this regulation until the court rules on challenges made to the Department of Labor’s authority to make this regulation as well as the validity of the regulation. The Department of Labor has expressed strong disagreement with the court’s decision and is currently considering its legal options regarding challenging the injunction.

What does this mean for employers?  For now, the overtime rule will not take effect as planned on December 1, 2016 but it could still be implemented at some point in the future. Employers may continue to follow the existing overtime regulations until a final decision is reached.

11/21/2016: F&P Attorney to Be Honored with Bar Association of Baltimore City’s Prestigious Presidential Award

Baltimore, MD, Nov 21, 2016 – Franklin & Prokopik principal Tamara Goorevitz has been selected as the Bar Association of Baltimore City (BABC) Presidential Award recipient.  Tamara will be honored tomorrow, November 22, at BABC’s Annual Past Presidents’ Luncheon, taking place at The Grand in downtown Baltimore.

The Presidential Awards are presented to BABC members who have devoted time and energy to the Association through substantial work on BABC committees and exemplary service to the Association and the community.

Ms. Goorevitz has been a longtime member of BABC.  As a member of the Association, she has served on the Executive Council and has also served in the following roles:  Co-Chair of the Bench-Bar Committee for four years; Co-Chair of the Membership Committee for two years; Chair and Co-Chair of the Professional Ethics Committee for one year each.  Ms. Goorevitz has also been an active participant and member of several other BABC committees including the Judicial Selections, Nominating, Diversity, and Personal Injury Committees.

“We at F&P are tremendously proud of Tamara for receiving this award. She has an incredible commitment not only to our firm, but her clients and the legal community as a whole. She is always eager to help others, even when she has so many of her own commitments to manage,” said F&P President Bert Randall.

Ms. Goorevitz currently practices civil litigation with a focus on general liability defense including trucking and transportation, retail, premises liability, products liability, motor tort, and employment law.  She received her BS in Political Science from James Madison University in 1995, and her JD from the University of Baltimore School of Law in 1998.

ABOUT FRANKLIN & PROKOPIK, P.C.

Headquartered in Baltimore City, Franklin & Prokopik is a regional law firm comprised of over 60 experienced attorneys meeting clients’ needs through our six offices which serve all areas of Maryland, Virginia, Washington D.C., Delaware, and West Virginia.  Our mission of providing the highest quality personal service enables us to grow, as we attract and develop other likeminded attorneys to serve our clients.  Franklin & Prokopik represents corporate and business entities of all sizes, from small “mom and pops” to Fortune 500 companies across a wide range of industries.

Contact:

Janessa Shaikun, Director of Marketing
410.230.1080
jshaikun@fandpnet.com

11/7/2016: Social Media Evidence Plays a Critical Role in F&P Trial Victory

Last Wednesday, November 2, F&P associate Mike Bennett won a defense verdict in a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, MD.  The claimant had filed an appeal of a September, 2015 decision from the Workers’ Compensation Commission which found he had achieved Maximum Medical Improvement and denied his request for treatment and ongoing Temporary Total Disability benefits.

The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in July, 2014 and sustained minor injuries as a result, including strains/sprains of his back, neck, and shoulder.  Following the accident, he received conservative treatment, including one injection in the left shoulder, as well as a course of physical therapy and work hardening sessions.  Although the medical records in this matter demonstrated rather innocuous injuries, conducting litigation in Prince George’s County can be a risky endeavor from an Employer and Insurer’s perspective as it is notoriously one of the most liberal jury pools in this State.

Despite his claim that he presently could not work due to the accident, the medical records alone did not support the claimant’s physical complaints as he had only seen a doctor one time since June, 2015.  While surveillance efforts did not produce any fruitful results, the Claimant’s Facebook page turned out to be an invaluable source.  He had posted pictures of himself doing landscaping work, roller skating, and riding a bike, along with a video of himself on a hoverboard, and, better yet – both pictures and videos of himself promoting his work for selling and installing carpet.  The Facebook photographs and videos were instrumental in convincing the jury that the claimant was not only capable of working, he had already returned to work.  This is a classic example of the growing role technology and social media is playing in litigation and the direct impact it can have on the outcome of a case.

11/1/2016: Ami Dwyer Named Vice Chair of USLAW NETWORK B.O.D.

At USLAW NETWORK’s annual meeting in Colorado Springs, the USLAW Board of Directors and Board of Directors’ Executive Committee were announced.  Franklin & Prokopik principal, Ami C. Dwyer of the firm’s Baltimore office and a member of the USLAW Executive Committee, was named Vice Chair.  Ami is very active in USLAW; she has served on the Board of Directors and Executive Committee for several years and is a past chair of both the Construction Law Committee and the Women’s Collection.  F&P is extremely pleased and proud that Ami has been honored with this new Vice Chair role.

USLAW is an international organization composed of nearly 100 independent, full practice firms with roots in civil litigation, including more than 6,000 attorneys covering the United States, Canada, Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa. USLAW is comprised of highly rated law firms that are part of the NETWORK by invitation only. Member firms undergo a rigorous review process to insure outstanding quality of lawyers throughout the USLAW NETWORK. USLAW firms are experienced in commercial and business law, employment and labor law, litigation and other business-related areas of law. All firms have substantial trial experience. USLAW member firms provide legal representation to major corporations, insurance companies, and large and small businesses alike.

 

10/10/2016: F&P’s Andrew Stephenson Reappointed to MD Accommodations Review Committee

Last month, the Court of Appeals of Maryland reappointed F&P senior principal, Andrew Stephenson, to the Accommodations Review Committee for terms to expire in 2021.  Eight other people were reappointed, including Sandra Holmes, Esq. as Committee Chair, and Mark D. Palmer, Esq. as Vice Chair.  The Court of Appeals is the highest court in the state of Maryland and is mandated by law to hear cases involving the death penalty, legislative redistricting, removal of certain officers, and certifications of questions of law.

10/3/2016: Bert Randall Discusses DOL’s “Final Rule” at MMTA Program

F&P principal Bert Randall presented on the Department of Labor’s (DOL) New Overtime Rule at the Maryland Motor Truck Association’s (MMTA) Annual Meeting last week.  The importance of the topic spans across industries, as the DOL’s “Final Rule” on overtime will affect an estimated 4.2 million workers.  Bert’s presentation provided key information including the various changes the rule entails and the steps for employers to take proactively to determine the best course of action in response.  The effective date of the Final Rule is December 1st, 2016.

The meeting took place on September 29th at Turf Valley in Elliott City and was followed by cocktails, a Chairman’s Banquet, awards and entertainment.  Additional topics covered were electronic logging devices, time management best practices, and an update on Maryland’s business climate from Maryland’s Department of Commerce Secretary, Mike Gill.

9/19/2016: 2016 Bootcamp Series Wraps Up In Philadelphia this Week

The last chapter of the 2016 Trucking Boot Camp for the Claims Professional will take place this Wednesday, September 21, at the Villanova University Conference Center in Philadelphia, PA.  The previous Bootcamps, which started last March, took place in Phoenix, Denver, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta and Orlando.  Now in its 8th year, the Trucking Boot Camp is co-hosted by F&P, Carr Allison, Dowd & Dowd, Fee Smith, Pion Nerone, Alvarez Winthrop, and Rincon Law Group.

“On the Road in 2016” covers some of the most relevant topics pertaining to the trucking and transportation industry, such as the role of truck technology and its impact on drivers, investigating night time driving accidents, prosecuting a trucking plaintiff, how to effectively and efficiently investigate and preserve evidence on low impact cases, and seeking better alternatives to litigation.  In addition, F&P Principal Andrew Stephenson leads a lively and informative mock trial and panel discussion.

The 2016 Bookcamps were sponsored by Custard Insurance Adjusters, Marshall Investigative Group, S-E-A, and US Legal Support.  We would like to thank our sponsors who help make this program possible.

For more information visit http://www.truckingbootcamp.com/