Culp Law Firm, LLC

01/01/2024

Happy New Year to our valued clients and friends!
We look forward to continuing to serve you in 2024.

12/24/2023

Merry Christmas!
Our office will be closed through Monday for Christmas, and will reopen on Tuesday at 8 AM. Wishing you and your families a joyful holiday!

11/22/2023

Happy Thanksgiving!
Our office will be closed on Thursday & Friday this week in observance of the holiday, and will reopen on Monday at 8 AM. We are always thankful for the continuous support of our clients.

upon us over the years, and the client outcomes that drive us, are a result of our experience, focus, talent, approach, and fee arrangements that align our clients’ interests with our own.

05/07/2021

Culp Law Firm, LLC in Neenah is seeking an associate attorney to fill a growing demand for our legal services. We are a general practice firm, with an emphasis on litigation and trial work, using advanced technology and computer resources. Some courtroom experience preferred, but we are willing to train the right candidate. The ideal candidate must be able to work independently, have solid problem solving and communications skills, be skillful with computers and technology, and have a good sense of humor. Highly competitive compensation package with benefits (for the area) will be offered to the right candidate. Please address cover letters, resumes, references, and compensation and benefit expectations to Attorney Peter Culp at [email protected] All inquiries will remain strictly confidential.

03/04/2021

Part 2 of the EEOC ADA-Related Guidance Regarding COVID-19 Issues:

A.5. When employees return to work, does the ADA allow employers to require a doctor's note certifying fitness for duty? (3/17/20)

Yes. Such inquiries are permitted under the ADA either because they would not be disability-related or, if the pandemic were truly severe, they would be justified under the ADA standards for disability-related inquiries of employees. As a practical matter, however, doctors and other health care professionals may be too busy during and immediately after a pandemic outbreak to provide fitness-for-duty documentation. Therefore, new approaches may be necessary, such as reliance on local clinics to provide a form, a stamp, or an e-mail to certify that an individual does not have the pandemic virus.

A.6. May an employer administer a COVID-19 test (a test to detect the presence of the COVID-19 virus) when evaluating an employee’s initial or continued presence in the workplace? (4/23/20; updated 9/8/20 to address stakeholder questions about updates to CDC guidance)

The ADA requires that any mandatory medical test of employees be “job related and consistent with business necessity.” Applying this standard to the current circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers may take screening steps to determine if employees entering the workplace have COVID-19 because an individual with the virus will pose a direct threat to the health of others. Therefore an employer may choose to administer COVID-19 testing to employees before initially permitting them to enter the workplace and/or periodically to determine if their presence in the workplace poses a direct threat to others. The ADA does not interfere with employers following recommendations by the CDC or other public health authorities regarding whether, when, and for whom testing or other screening is appropriate. Testing administered by employers consistent with current CDC guidance will meet the ADA’s “business necessity” standard.

Consistent with the ADA standard, employers should ensure that the tests are considered accurate and reliable. For example, employers may review information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about what may or may not be considered safe and accurate testing, as well as guidance from CDC or other public health authorities. Because the CDC and FDA may revise their recommendations based on new information, it may be helpful to check these agency websites for updates. Employers may wish to consider the incidence of false-positives or false-negatives associated with a particular test. Note that a positive test result reveals that an individual most likely has a current infection and may be able to transmit the virus to others. A negative test result means that the individual did not have detectable COVID-19 at the time of testing.

A negative test does not mean the employee will not acquire the virus later. Based on guidance from medical and public health authorities, employers should still require–to the greatest extent possible–that employees observe infection control practices (such as social distancing, regular handwashing, and other measures) in the workplace to prevent transmission of COVID-19.

Note: Question A.6 and A.8 address screening of employees generally. See Question A.9 regarding decisions to screen individual employees.

A.7. CDC said in its Interim Guidelines that antibody test results “should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace.” In light of this CDC guidance, under the ADA may an employer require antibody testing before permitting employees to re-enter the workplace? (6/17/20)

No. An antibody test constitutes a medical examination under the ADA. In light of CDC’s Interim Guidelines that antibody test results “should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace,” an antibody test at this time does not meet the ADA’s “job related and consistent with business necessity” standard for medical examinations or inquiries for current employees. Therefore, requiring antibody testing before allowing employees to re-enter the workplace is not allowed under the ADA. Please note that an antibody test is different from a test to determine if someone has an active case of COVID-19 (i.e., a viral test). The EEOC has already stated that COVID-19 viral tests are permissible under the ADA.

The EEOC will continue to closely monitor CDC’s recommendations, and could update this discussion in response to changes in CDC’s recommendations.

02/11/2021

The EEOC recently issued ADA-related guidance in relation got various COVID-19 issues. I will periodically post questions and answers from that guidance. Here is the first of several posts in that regard:

A.1. How much information may an employer request from an employee who calls in sick, in order to protect the rest of its workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic? (3/17/20)

During a pandemic, ADA-covered employers may ask such employees if they are experiencing symptoms of the pandemic virus. For COVID-19, these include symptoms such as fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath, or sore throat. Employers must maintain all information about employee illness as a confidential medical record in compliance with the ADA.

A.2. When screening employees entering the workplace during this time, may an employer only ask employees about the COVID-19 symptoms EEOC has identified as examples, or may it ask about any symptoms identified by public health authorities as associated with COVID-19? (4/9/20)

As public health authorities and doctors learn more about COVID-19, they may expand the list of associated symptoms. Employers should rely on the CDC, other public health authorities, and reputable medical sources for guidance on emerging symptoms associated with the disease. These sources may guide employers when choosing questions to ask employees to determine whether they would pose a direct threat to health in the workplace. For example, additional symptoms beyond fever or cough may include new loss of smell or taste as well as gastrointestinal problems, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting.

A.3. When may an ADA-covered employer take the body temperature of employees during the COVID-19 pandemic? (3/17/20)

Generally, measuring an employee's body temperature is a medical examination. Because the CDC and state/local health authorities have acknowledged community spread of COVID-19 and issued attendant precautions, employers may measure employees' body temperature. However, employers should be aware that some people with COVID-19 do not have a fever.

A.4. Does the ADA allow employers to require employees to stay home if they have symptoms of the COVID-19? (3/17/20)

Yes. The CDC states that employees who become ill with symptoms of COVID-19 should leave the workplace. The ADA does not interfere with employers following this advice.

02/01/2021

Avoiding Tricks of Insurance Companies

If you were recently in a car accident, then you have also likely been contacted by an auto insurance company recently. When they reach out to claimants, they always start by showing a friendly face. As nice as they might be, remember that they are a company that needs to make a yearly profit like any other business. Your best interests are not their priority, and you should not be surprised when an auto insurance company tries to use some clever tactics throughout your claim to save their bottom line at your expense.

1. Lowball Settlement Offers

Easily the most common car insurance company tactic is flinging lowball settlement offers at claimants in hopes that one will be caught. A lowball settlement is an offer that has been intentionally calculated lower than what the claimant likely needs or deserves after a crash.

For example, you are hit by a drunk driver and suffer injuries requiring $50,000 in medical treatments. The responding insurance company knows the evidence is stacked against them, so they quickly offer a settlement of just $20,000 to you. $20,000 seems like a lot of money, so it is tempting, but it is much less than what you are owed.

The reason insurance companies love to use lowball settlement offers is that they are irreversible once accepted. If you sign a settlement offer, no matter its amount, then your claim ends, and it is practically impossible to revisit. Before you accept any offer, let your attorney review it and tell you what to do. Insurance companies might try to rush you into signing by saying the offer is only good for a few days, but this is often untrue. Actual offers usually stand until the claimant has responded.

2. Demanding a Recorded Statement

Did you know that you do not owe a recorded statement to anyone else’s insurance company after a car accident? It is true, but, if you listen to auto insurance representatives, then you might not have known it.

A common tactic used by insurers is to call a claimant shortly after an accident and tell them that they must provide a recorded statement then and there. They probably will not be very aggressive with their words since that can scare someone into hanging up. Instead, they will use flowery and professional language to try to get you to say something on record.

Why do insurers want your words on record, though? They are trying to find something to misconstrue into an admission of guilt to increase your liability and lower your settlement offer. The safe choice is to instruct all insurance companies to talk to your attorney for all future communications, not yourself.

3. Playing the Delaying Game

At every step along the path of a car accident claim, there are deadlines and statutes of limitation that insurance companies must follow. For example, in California, auto insurance companies must acknowledge a claim within 15 days of its original filing, accept or deny the claim within 40 days of receiving proof of liability, and pay a settlement within 30 days of reaching one.

Some insurance companies like to try to discourage claimants by using every single minute of each deadline before acting. Even if they have available resources to manage your claim quickly, they might drag their feet and leave the case sitting on their desks untouched. Why? They want you to feel unsure about your claim’s validity and either drop it altogether or accept a lowball settlement offer.

Do not let the delay game get to you. Side with an experienced personal injury lawyer who can monitor your claim as it progresses, reassure you, and pursue the insurance company if required deadlines are missed.