Arkansas Blog: Judges allege pressure under Huckabee

In an article for workcompcentral.com, Michael Whiteley writes that local attorney Rick Spencer "alleges that a top aide to ex-governor and presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee pressured judges to rule against injured workers and played a role in the firings of three judges who say they were removed for favoring claimants over business."

The affidavits filed by Daniels and White allege a pattern of intimidation that left administrative law judges openly joking around the AWCC offices in Little Rock that they could be fired for ruling against Wal-Mart.

[Bill] Daniels, a Monticello, Ark., attorney, said he was told after he was hired by former Huckabee Chief of Staff Brenda Turner that he needed to be mindful of Huckabee's pro-business stance.

"She later stated that I should 'remember that we have a very pro-business governor,'" Daniels said in a March 21, 2005, affidavit.

"I believed then that I was being directed by the governor's chief of staff to interpret act 796 of 1993 and any cases which came before me in a manner that would result in decisions favorable to respondents and the business and insurance industry without regard to the facts and the law," Daniels said in the affidavit.

Read the full article after the jump.

Arkansas -- Huckabee Aide Pressured Judges, Attorney Says: Top [03/07/07]

An Arkansas attorney alleges that a top aide to ex-governor and presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee pressured judges to rule against injured workers and played a role in the firings of three judges who say they were removed for favoring claimants over business.

Attorney Rick Spencer raised influence-peddling allegations against Huckabee's administration and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in a workers' compensation case that he lost last month.

Court documents in Long v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. charge that Huckabee's chief of staff and his liaison to the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (AWCC) repeatedly complained about judges' decisions after being pressured by former Wal-Mart lobbyist, Steve Carter.

Both Insurance Commissioner Julie Benafield Bowman, former chief executive officer of the AWCC, and current CEO Alan McClain deny the allegations.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 21 that Spencer "failed to demonstrate that either the executive branch of the State of Arkansas or various private interests exerted pressure on the administrative law judge or the commissioner sitting in this case that infringed upon their decisional independence and resulted in either actual bias or the appearance of bias."

Spencer charged in the Long case and in an ethics complaint he filed with the Arkansas Supreme Court that three judges were fired for ruling favorably on behalf of plaintiffs.

Only one of the three judges filed a lawsuit: Former Judge Eileen Harrison filed a complaint in federal court against the commission and settled the case for $125,000.

Spencer sought to use evidence and testimony from six depositions taken in connection with Harrison's federal lawsuit to show that workers' compensation courts had a bias toward employers and that the governor's office was behind it.

Harrison introduced as evidence during her trial a report that Wal-Mart, which is based in Bentonville, Ark., had joined other members of the Arkansas Self-Insurers Association (ASIA) in repeated warnings that judges were "eroding" a 1993 workers' compensation reform package.

The appeals court agreed last month with the AWCC's decision not to consider the depositions in the Long case. The court said the evidence the AWCC did consider -- affidavits signed by fired judges William "Bill" Daniels and C. Michael White -- failed to show bias in the Long case and "do not establish an abuse of discretion."

A parallel ethics complaint Spencer filed, which also contends judges were ordered to make it difficult for him to practice before the AWCC, was dismissed by the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission and later by the state Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct.

Spencer said last week he will appeal the Long case to the Arkansas Supreme Court and argue that intense pressure on judges by the former governor's office denied applicant Tony Long and others due process under the U.S. Constitution.

"This is a sad, sad story," Spencer said. "You've got judges in these cases making rulings knowing that it may cost them their jobs."

Huckabee's office denied the allegations at the time of the firings. In a deposition filed in the Harrison case, Huckabee said he was generally aware of complaints about the commission but did not recall discussions of specific judges or commissioners.

Alice Stewart, press secretary for the Huckabee presidential exploratory committee, referred all questions to McClain.

Champion of the underdog

Huckabee, a Baptist preacher, replaced Gov. Jim Guy Tucker mid-term after Tucker was convicted for a felony related to the Whitewater scandal. He went on to serve two full terms as governor.

Huckabee filed paperwork to launch his presidential bid on Jan. 29, a day after he announced his intentions on NBC's "Meet the Press," and told host Tim Russert, "America loves an underdog."

The affidavits filed by Daniels and White allege a pattern of intimidation that left administrative law judges openly joking around the AWCC offices in Little Rock that they could be fired for ruling against Wal-Mart.

Daniels, a Monticello, Ark., attorney, said he was told after he was hired by former Huckabee Chief of Staff Brenda Turner that he needed to be mindful of Huckabee's pro-business stance.

"She later stated that I should 'remember that we have a very pro-business governor,'" Daniels said in a March 21, 2005, affidavit.

"I believed then that I was being directed by the governor's chief of staff to interpret act 796 of 1993 and any cases which came before me in a manner that would result in decisions favorable to respondents and the business and insurance industry without regard to the facts and the law," Daniels said in the affidavit.

Under Arkansas law, the state's administrative law judges can be fired without notice or cause. They hold the first hearings on workers' compensation cases. Their decisions can be appealed to the AWCC and then to the Court of Appeals.

In December 2002, Daniels said he was approached by then AWCC Commissioner Shelby "Terry" Turner, the husband of Huckabee's chief of staff, and advised that the commissioner had reviewed Daniels' decisions and "was surprised to find that I ruled in favor of claimants about 35% of the time."

Daniels said he was fired five months later on May 1, 2003, and told only "it was in everyone's best interests."

Former Administrative Law Judge White, who is helping Spencer with the constitutional challenge, said he also was fired without explanation and said judges continually felt pressured to rule against claimants.

He said one commission official warned him the commission was going to go "in the way the political winds are blowing."

White, who served as an administrative law judge for nine years and an AWCC attorney for five years before that, was fired from his judge's post in September 2004.

Wal-Mart concerned

Depositions filed in connection with the Harrison case allege a continuing dialogue in the late 1990s among business leaders, Brenda Turner, and Marcus Devine, Huckabee's workers' compensation liaison, over concerns that the judges' rulings were contrary to the spirit of the 1993 reforms.

Devine testified in a Sept. 16, 1999, deposition that he had received complaints about the decisions of then-AWCC Chairman Eldon Coffman from "members of big industry."

Devine said the complaints came from Carter, the Wal-Mart lobbyist and son of then-Wal-Mart Vice President Paul Carter, according to court records. Devine said he relayed them to Huckabee, who asked him to investigate.

Devine said he interpreted the complaints to mean Coffman too often voted with the labor commissioner on the three-member AWCC, yielding a two-to-one margin for workers.

Devine said business leaders never ordered him to fire Coffman or anyone else associated with the commission.

"They raised their concern. They'd never put to me that they wanted this action taken or that action taken," Devine testified. "They just raised their concerns about Mr. Coffman."

Devine said he met with Coffman and told him of Wal-Mart's concerns. He said the governor's office had not decided to take any action.

"I made him really aware, as a heads-up, of the fact that there were these complaints out and about."

In a deposition also taken in connection with Harrison's firing, retired U.S. District Judge Henry Woods, her father, said Coffman warned him at a social gathering that Harrison's job was on the line.

Woods said the former AWCC chairman told him, "I must tell you that we're being pursued by the self-insurers and some of the insurance companies to get rid of Eileen to discharge and fire her, because they feel that she is being too fair to claimants." Coffman said he does not remember that conversation.

Harrison had issued a controversial ruling challenging the constitutionality of a section of the worker's compensation law mandating that injured workers have given "implied consent" for drug testing.

Axes to grind?

Harrison was fired by Bowman, while she was serving as then chief executive officer of the workers' compensation commission.

Bowman said in an interview Friday that no administrative law judge was fired for ruling in favor of claimants.

"Absolutely not," Bowman said. "I don't think the Huckabee administration was even aware of what kinds of cases were filed over there. There was absolutely no pressure on administrative law judges to make decisions one way or the other."

She said Chapter 796 represented a "huge change" in workers' compensation that triggered monitoring from everyone involved.

"I have read those affidavits," Bowman said. "In my opinion, they are not accurate. They are written by employees who were terminated and who were disgruntled and who have axes to grind."

Reached at his home in Fort Smith, Ark., Coffman also denied that the judges' firings were retribution for pro-worker rulings.

"I never saw that," he said. "To my knowledge, Mr. Spencer never represents respondents. That's the true test ... if you read some of his cases, you'd know why he didn't win."

McClain, who's been CEO of the workers' compensation for about two years, said Friday the allegations of political influence are dated and had no relevance to the Long case.

"It was before my time. But as long as I've been around, it's been my understanding that the governor's office hasn't had any input into the decision making of the administrative law judges.

"It's highly unlikely the governor put pressure on the administrative law judges," he said.

White said tensions among judges have eased during the administration of Gov. Mike Beebe. But White said he is pushing for statutory protections that would guarantee judges can't be fired without cause.

"We need to keep pressing this issue," he said. "We don't know who will come into office next as governor. We don't know what will happen."

John Simley, a spokesperson at Wal-Mart's corporate headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., said said the world's largest retailer agrees with the appeals court decision and declined further comment.

Documents filed in connection with the cases are available at Spencer's Web site, http://www.rickspencer.com by clicking on the button labeled "WCC ALJ's Threatened."

--By Michael Whiteley, WorkCompCentral Southeast Bureau Chief
mike@workcompcentral.com

Comments

My guess is that Huckabee leaked this information to the media and is delighted with the article. It should help him raise money from the State Chamber of Commerce, which is opposing four bills to help workers now before the Arkansas legislature. The Chamber is even opposing a bill to cover funeral expenses of a worked killed on the job.

Posted by: Cassandra | March 8, 2007 08:06 AM

I would be shocked to hear this went on.

Posted by: Cato | March 8, 2007 08:39 AM

Big business has insidiously and successfully turned Worker's Comp into the enemy of the 'worker'; rather than the fair arbiter it was sold as. And Huckabuck has done more than his fair share of screwing workers while garnering favor with his so-called base.

Worker's Comp is a national disgrace. Someone can be paralyzed from the neck down through company negligence/shoddy safety standards and be forced to fight tooth/nail to prove they're 'disabled.' And, depending upon the state, can be kicked off Comp after 1-2 years regardless (last time I checked Texas/Louisiana were the worst).

Of course, the 'argument' is that workers traded the right to sue (when gross negligence/crappy working conditions are at fault) in favor of the privilege of working. The truth is that neither the will of the workers nor the best interest of the workers had anything to do with it. Big insurance companies and big business got together (like they weren't incestuously intertwined already) and devised a way to cut work-safety corners and rid themselves of all liability. And, being good Republicans they also managed to get the government to do their dirty work and shoulder some of the cost. Throw it away and start over.

Posted by: zelda | March 8, 2007 08:56 AM

I think people underestimate the Huck. He has the makings of another W.

Posted by: Fletch | March 8, 2007 08:57 AM

Hubby let something slip on the job a couple of years ago and sliced a little off the end of his finger. (And I do mean little; he could and did forego a single stitch. It healed nicely without an obvious scar.) The clinic had to take a drug test for workman's comp requirements. It didn't matter that the injury was slight. It didn't matter if there was no indication of drug use. It was required.
It's obvious this is simply one of the ways business is cutting its costs. Was something poorly maintained and falling apart, or was poor co-worker judgment the obvious cause of a devastating injury? (How about a drug test for the co-worker?) I've known both of these situations to happen.
Too bad . . . a lingering sign of marijuana use, which apparently can be detected long after use and when it is no longer impairing the user. AH HA! THAT'S why he was injured! Nope, no workman's comp for him!
(Have you ever worked with someone in the throes of a major alcoholic hangover? He may not be legally impaired, but honey, he ain't safe to be around.)

Posted by: Doigotta | March 8, 2007 09:02 AM

A good Biblical reference fits here.

Matthew 23:27
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Well maybe this is not exactly the place.

Posted by: Fletch | March 8, 2007 09:03 AM

"Take Brenda Turner, his chief of staff, and her husband, Terry, an appointee to the Workers Comp Commission, together beneficiaries of state jobs worth a combined $200,000"

The above quote is from a January 17th, 2007 thread on this blog. Like Huck appointing the head lawyer for Centerpoint Energy to head the PSC, he also found a juicy little spot for Brenda Turner's husband on the Workers Comp Commission.

If my memory serves me right before Mr. Turner started ruling on cases that could ruin an entire family he was in the tire business. Hardly a job that lends itself to ruling in Workers Comp cases. Now that Huck has fired Mrs. Turner, is Mr. Turner fixing to get the ax too? Maybe he'll be replaced with one of Rove's people too?

My best friend was a Workers Comp lawyer back when Workers Comp was gutted and Arkansas workers were sold down the river.

I won't pretend to know all the ends and outs of Workers Comp, but I know my lawyer buddy is a fair and decent human and he said the new improved Workers Comp was a travesty and that thousands and thousands of injured workers and their families would suffer as the worker becomes a disposable tool, used up and thrown away by big business as they work towards 100% profits in the future.

Besides his own, whose side is Huckabee on 24-7? A quick check of his PAC donors show it's big business at his side, the wind in his sails, probably paying him back for past favors. That R behind his name means more than Jesus worship and Moonie marriages....ahead of all that Big Business is Huckster's Savior and their mutual admiration society has made Huck a rich man.

How much clearer could it be?

Posted by: Deathbyinches | March 8, 2007 10:12 AM

Zelda said "the 'argument' is that workers traded the right to sue (when gross negligence/crappy working conditions are at fault) in favor of the privilege of working."

Zelda's statement is not entirely accurate. Theoretically, the argument for workers' compensation acts is that workers trade the right to sue in tort for the benefit of not having to prove fault. Employers give up tort defenses in exchange for a more definite system and more predictable. limited damages. In other words, a worker injured on the job is supposed to be entitled to compensation without showing that the employer did anything (or omitted to do something) that caused the injury, and the employer's potential liability is lessened in return.

If anything, an understanding of the underpinnings of the system demonstrate more strongly how perverted the system has become. Employers and insurance companies have lobbied legislatures for the inclusion of provisions in the acts that make compensation more difficult to obtain, and the litigation under the system is, if anything, more onerous than a tort claim pursued through the judicial system. Reform is needed, but not reform that further perverts the system. Reform should return the system to its original theoretical underpinnings to have a system that is efficient and fair in providing compensation.

Posted by: Gaddis | March 8, 2007 10:15 AM

That's a nice, unbiased source y'all are citing there. workcompcentral.com was founded by workers comp attorneys. It's about as independent as Wal-Mart Watch or any of the other union-funded, big-labor-driven websites out there that do nothing but bash business and Republicans.

I feel bad for UCA if these are the journalistic standards Mr. Sabin is taking to his new job.

Posted by: Prouster | March 8, 2007 11:46 AM

"..without regard to the facts and the law,"

This is new to Huckabee?

Posted by: Lwood | March 8, 2007 11:57 AM

I take Prouster's point, but there's one problem with it--pointing out one's motivation in publishing facts does not necessarily refute the facts themselves. The story merely reports what others have said in court filings and the like. Workcompcentral.com might indeed be a biased source, but you might ought to contest the story itself before you dismiss it out of hand.

Posted by: Gaddis | March 8, 2007 12:00 PM

Gaddis said "...Theoretically, the argument for workers' compensation acts is that workers trade the right to sue in tort for the benefit of not having to prove fault. Employers give up tort defenses in exchange for a more definite system and more predictable. limited damages."

Zelda says her initial statement was spot on. True, it's in everyday language rather than legalese...but it's still the basic tenet of Worker's Comp. The underlying 'legal' premise is that no matter how dangerous the job...no matter how provable the danger is, the only 'legal' recourse for a worker is to quit (before and after injury). Combine that with the reality that 'workers' didn't trade anything, and you hardly have a fair quid pro quo. Their rights were bartered away by insurance companies, businesses and our corporate government; and the downward spiral keeps getting worse.

I do understand what you're saying, Gaddis; I simply disagree with the premise that Worker's Comp is based on a valid contract. Workers neither gained anything nor agreed to anything. 'I agree to not sue you for injuries that were your fault if you agree to take care' of me at your discretion if the injuries were your fault'...is a one-sided deal.

Posted by: zelda | March 8, 2007 12:13 PM

".is a one-sided deal."

I had an econ proff back in the 60s who pointed out repeatedly that we needed to study "sawmill towns" to understand how Arkansas works and why we were then at the bottom of the heap. We remain there today.
Beebe will change nothing.
_

Posted by: Lwood | March 8, 2007 12:26 PM

I'm actually glad Prouster showed up! It was looking like the wingnut defenders of all things Bush-Bad had fled to the hills.

Posted by: Deathbyinches | March 8, 2007 01:01 PM

Leaning on judges (or those administrative appointees who function like judges) to influence the outcome of a pending case, or enforce an agenda for cases generally, ought to be a crime, shouldn't it? Kinda' like if a senator or a representative were to lean on, say, a US Attorney to ascertain or influence an ongoing investigation, for political reasons.....

Posted by: hooboy | March 8, 2007 01:26 PM

"I think people underestimate the Huck. He has the makings of another W."

As he openly stated "He comes from them."

This time around another "W" will not get a free ride thanks to Al Gore who invented the internet. Besides, Bush was connected via Daddy and Darth Cheney & Company found their perfect hunting dog.

Getting a leesh on Huckabuck shouldn't cost the ruling elite too much. It sure didn't cost them very much down here in the sticks. Hell, he didn't even get his own roller rink
not to mention a big time baseball stadium at taxpayer's expense.
_

Posted by: Lwood | March 8, 2007 02:03 PM

Is this the same Michael Whitely who once worked for the Dem-Gaz and did a story about meth, money and sex in Madison County and talked about some pore old girl living her life on a "personal sexual watercraft" or some similar sort of forced metaphor?

Posted by: 24fps | March 8, 2007 03:03 PM

Hi Gaddis, and others - I am the CEO of WorkCompCentral and I appreciate the interest in our stories and the debate this story in particular has raised.

Gaddis is correct, I am an attorney at law licensed in the state of California (116735) and prior to starting WorkCompCentral I represented insurance companies and employers in the work comp system for 18 years.

Thus, while Gaddis is correct that this service was founded by work comp attorney(s) (actually, just one, though we do employ a number of other work comp professionals), he or she is incorrect in implying that we are biased in favor of big business, insurance, or employers - in fact this article demonstrates that any topic is fair game in our news reporting.

We have gained a national reputation for our fair and unbiased reporting. We have taken on many big names in the industry, and have also likewise reported the opposite end of the spectrum. We are particularly known for NOT catering to any special interest group.

Again - thanks for reading, and in particular thank you even more for paying attention to workers' compensation which, in my opinion, is the most under rated and least understood economic force in this country. In my personal opinion there is much wrong with most state workers' compensation systems, so the more exposure and attention the systems get, hopefully the better for all in the long run.

Posted by: DJD | March 8, 2007 06:28 PM

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=0dd87d03-7e3a-4ea3-8198-164dfa3290c9
In Arkansas the death of an employee only costs $2250 to the negligent company. And if they hire unmarried workders with no dependents, they wont even have a WC claim on file. Yes, the system needs major reform.

Posted by: retsof | March 8, 2007 07:30 PM

Hell, yes, the system needs reformed.
Why is it that employer's pay thousands and thousands of dollars every year for worker's comp insurance, but have no say whatsoever if an employee does file a claim?
Sometimes the claims are true, and the employer WANTS the company to pay, but the state of AR says "No."
It's just a crazy system.

Posted by: BlueRidge | March 8, 2007 10:27 PM

I have seen awcc in action. I was sent to see Dr. Sharon Meador in Conway,Ar after insurance company found that I had real injury. She knowing that I was a truck driver released me to FULL DUTY after I wouldn't make my wife leave the exam room. Dr. Meador refused to see me with her in exam room. I was thaking pain pills (methadone) at the time. I them went to Dr. of employer for D.O.T. EXAM and he refused to let me drive. Then on June 20,2008 I filed for SSI and was approved on July 29,2008 and had my first check by Aug 7,2008. Now if I was fit for full duty how did I get my SSDI within 45 days?

Posted by: Gary W. McClain | October 9, 2008 12:14 PM

PLEASE GO TO MY URL http:www.truckers4federalworkerscompensation.blogspot.com THIS INFO WILL SHOW WHERE WE NEED TO START.

Posted by: Gary W. McClain | October 9, 2008 12:20 PM

Arkansas Blog

Judges allege pressure under Huckabee

Comments

Post a comment