Reading Time: 3 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• A judge’s order promises compensation to potentially thousands of disabled workers who were denied unemployment benefits under a state law struck down as discriminatory.

• The invalidated law prevented recipients of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) from collecting unemployment insurance.

• Two classes of workers may be eligible for compensation: those denied unemployment benefits after Sept. 7, 2015, and before July 30, 2025, under the invalidated law, and those who had to repay benefits they received during that period for the same reason.

A federal judge has ordered Wisconsin’s Department of Workforce Development to compensate disabled workers who were denied unemployment benefits under a state law struck down as discriminatory.

U.S. District Judge William Conley’s order promises relief to potentially thousands of workers affected by a 2013 Wisconsin law that banned recipients of federal disability aid from collecting unemployment compensation when they lost work. 

But many details remain to be ironed out, including how quickly the state will reprocess a decade’s worth of denied claims and whether any claims should draw priority.

“Some work needs to be done yet to put the order into practice, and counsels for the class are working diligently to get to that point,” said Paul Kinne, one of the attorneys representing plaintiffs.

Conley issued his order Wednesday following a hearing in which attorneys representing workers and the state discussed remedies for denials under a law that Conley ruled violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. 

The overturned law prevented recipients of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) — a monthly benefit for people with disabilities who have worked and paid into Social Security — from collecting unemployment insurance.

Republican lawmakers who approved the law claimed in 2013 that simultaneously collecting disability and unemployment benefits represented “double dipping.” But SSDI guidelines have long allowed and even encouraged recipients to supplement their income with part-time work, so long as their earnings remain below the threshold of “substantial gainful activity.” 

Conley’s order covers two classes: workers who were denied unemployment benefits after Sept. 7, 2015, and before July 30, 2025, due to receiving SSDI, and those who had to repay benefits they received during that period for the same reason.

Not every class member is automatically entitled to benefits, Kinne said, and it may take time to determine eligibility. That’s due to a variety of factors, including potential difficulties in retrieving and analyzing past claims data — and locating the claimants. Still, Kinne expects an  “overwhelming majority” of class members to be compensated.

In addition to receiving compensation for past denied claims, class members can file certifications for subsequent weeks in which they were told they were ineligible to file. These certifications should be submitted within 90 days of receiving notice from the department, the order said. 

The order also states that claimants who were charged with unemployment fraud for not properly disclosing their SSDI status will be eligible for benefits they had to repay. 

Class members who received federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) — aid for people who lost work during the COVID-19 pandemic but didn’t qualify for regular benefits — will not receive additional benefits for weeks in which they already received pandemic aid. PUA claims were paid at a higher rate than regular benefits, Conley’s order states, and federal law bans the collection of both.

The Department of Workforce Development will begin notifying affected workers by Oct. 1, the order said. The parties must still agree on the language for those notifications, which should inform affected workers about the outcome of the lawsuit and how to claim benefits to which they should be entitled.

“I was generally pleased with the order,” Kinne said. “There is now light at the end of the tunnel for disabled people to receive the unemployment compensation that they should have received in the past.” 

Wisconsin to compensate workers with disabilities for wrongfully denied unemployment claims is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• A 2013 state law prevented recipients of federal Social Security Disability Insurance from collecting state unemployment insurance after losing part-time work.  

• A federal judge struck down the law, ruling that it had “disparate impact on disabled workers seeking unemployment insurance benefits.”

• A hearing will explore whether and how the state should compensate workers for past denied claims.

Wisconsin has stopped blocking laid-off workers who receive disability benefits from collecting unemployment insurance — a response to court rulings that the practice violated federal discrimination law. 

Now U.S. District Judge William Conley will consider whether and how the state should compensate workers for past denied claims. Attorneys representing the state and affected workers plan to propose remedies ahead of a hearing on Wednesday. 

“In my eyes, we deserve all of it,” James Trandel, a longtime seasonal worker who faced denials for years, told Wisconsin Watch. “The law should have never been.”

The state law in question prevented recipients of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) — a monthly benefit for people with disabilities who have worked and paid into Social Security — from collecting unemployment insurance after losing work. 

In proposing the law under Gov. Scott Walker in 2013, Republican lawmakers claimed that simultaneously collecting disability and unemployment benefits represented “double dipping” that “may constitute fraud.”

That overlooked the fact that SSDI guidelines have long allowed and even encouraged people on disability to supplement their income with part-time work, so long as their earnings remain below the threshold of “substantial gainful activity.” 

Eight SSDI recipients, with help from attorneys, challenged the law in 2021 by filing a class action lawsuit.

Conley ruled in July 2024 that the law violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, citing its “disparate impact on disabled workers seeking unemployment insurance benefits.”

But the ruling was not immediately implemented. The state’s Department of Workforce Development continued denying unemployment claims until Conley ordered it to stop in July.

DWD spokesperson Haley McCoy said the department did not oppose Conley’s order to stop enforcing the law he struck down, but she declined further comment due to pending litigation.

The lawsuit covers two classes: workers who were denied unemployment benefits after Sept. 7, 2015, due to receiving SSDI, and those who had to repay benefits they received for the same reason.

Conley will now consider who in those classes qualifies for benefits and how much they should get. 

Both parties will exchange proposals before Wednesday’s oral arguments to address such questions, said Victor Forberger, an attorney for the plaintiffs who has helped many SSDI recipients pursue their claims. The plaintiffs want the state to fairly compensate those who faced discriminatory denials, he added. 

The discussions may also involve how to address past claims for federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) — aid for people who lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic but didn’t qualify for regular benefits. The state initially denied PUA claims from workers on disability, but it reversed course in mid-2020 following Wisconsin Watch and WPR’s reporting on the denials.

“No one’s asking to get paid benefits twice. They’re just asking to get paid to be treated just like everyone else,” Forberger said.

Fighting for future generations 

Trandel, who has used a wheelchair since a 1983 fall left his legs paralyzed, filed for unemployment for years during the off-seasons of his job as a gate chief for the Milwaukee Brewers, where he helps with tickets and security. He has since hit retirement age, now 67, allowing him to switch from SSDI to Social Security retirement benefits. The state allowed him to collect a couple of weeks of state unemployment pay for the first time this spring because he was no longer on SSDI.

Although Trandel managed to get by without the state fulfilling his past claims, he believes that compensating workers for past denials would offer a measure of justice.

But even if that doesn’t happen, he’s proud of what the lawsuit has accomplished so far. 

“If I get nothing, that’s fine,” Trandel said. “At least the law’s changed so the future generations won’t have to go through what we went through the last 12 years.”

Judy Fintz, a seasonal worker and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, hopes that allowing SSDI recipients to collect unemployment like others will eliminate one of the many barriers they face in interacting with a long-outdated system that’s undergoing an overhaul. 

Fintz spends the school year cleaning tables, windows and soda machines part time at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse dining hall. She applied for unemployment during the off months from school, when she relies on SSDI while her bills pile up. That experience was far from smooth, even outside of the denials. She faced the difficulties of having to file claims by phone rather than online due to a severe learning disability, and she said she was treated poorly.

“This should really change everything around,” Fintz said of the court proceedings. “We should be able to get (unemployment insurance) without issue, so we can pay our bills.”

Reentering the workforce

As they await the outcome of litigation, some SSDI recipients are looking for more work that accommodates their disabilities.

Eugene Wilson of Madison is one such person. He deals with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder — conditions that make him easily overwhelmed by tasks and make repetitive work difficult.

Wilson found part-time work years ago before being laid off during the pandemic. He was denied regular unemployment and PUA during a process that took an additional toll on his mental health, he said.

He now receives about $1,500 a month in SSDI benefits and affords his apartment with the help of rental aid. He barely gets by.

He has tried for years to return to the workforce, but he rarely hears back after filing applications and sending thank-you messages. 

“It’s like nobody wants to hire anybody on disability,” Wilson said.

“I just want to get out there and do it and show people that people on disability can do this.”

Jessica Barrera of Eau Claire has a similar goal. Wisconsin Watch followed her in 2020 as she navigated life as a single mother who lost her job during the pandemic and depended in part on SSDI to survive. She spent six months fighting to receive her PUA claim after being denied regular unemployment insurance, initially unaware of the 2013 state law. 

“It really made me feel less than others,” Barrera said. 

That pushed her toward a new goal: “to be equal” by earning a degree and returning to the workforce full time. Barrera is just two semesters away from earning her bachelor’s degree in social work at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. She works part time as a peer and parent support specialist, supporting families with mental health challenges  — including those who face similar barriers to hers.

She lives with a rare disorder that makes her blood too thick, causing clots and severe fatigue that can make it hard to even get out of bed. Her current job gives her the flexibility to handle her frequent medical appointments and other challenges with the disease. Working full time will require finding an employer who understands her situation.

Barrera, who is not a plaintiff, encourages those seeking justice in court to stay hopeful and persistent.

“When I got the denial, had I just been like, ‘Well, I’m denied. I’m just out of luck’… Would we be where we are now?” Barrera said. “You have to sometimes be patient, but keep (up) the good fight.”

Wisconsin ends unemployment aid ban for workers with disabilities. Now they want compensation for past denials. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

New vehicles come with a bit of a learning curve and that’s especially true of EVs. This applies not only to owners, but also to people and companies that service them.

Unfortunately with anything ‘new,’ costs tend to be high – at least initially. That’s particularly true when it comes to electric vehicle repairs, but prices are starting to fall.

More: EV Crash Claims Jump 38%, And Repairs Are Pricier Than Ever

According to the German Insurance Association (GDV), comprehensive insurance claims for electric vehicles were 20-25% higher than those for comparable combustion models last year. However, the average claim has now dropped to 15-20% higher than ICE-powered models.

The Deputy General Director for the GDV said, “The more electric cars there are on the road, the less their claims differ from comparable cars with combustion engines.” Anja Käfer-Rohrbach went on to explain, “A broader model range reaches a larger customer base, and workshops, towing companies, fire departments, and appraisers now have more experience with damaged electric cars.”

She said these developments are helping to drive down repair costs as EVs are becoming the “new normal.” It’s also worth noting the latest study period was from 2021-2023, so EVs are far more common today.

On that note, the GDV said there were approximately 1.65 million electric vehicles registered in Germany at the beginning of the year. That’s a fivefold increase from 2021 and EVs currently account for 3.3% of all vehicles registered in the country.

While a number of companies are focused on robotaxis, Tensor has unveiled the first “fully autonomous L4 robocar that you can own.” That’s a bold claim from a company that can’t seem to cobble together a proper press kit, so forgive us if we’re a little hesitant to hand over the keys to our survival.

From the hodgepodge of information that the company released, we can see their robocar is actually a “luxury crossover SUV” that looks like a bloated Toyota Prius. It features an awkward-looking front end with sensors and SignalScreens. The latter are used to communicate with other road users via CarMoji.

More: GM Doubling Down On Autonomous Driving Efforts

Moving further back, we can see streamlined bodywork, aerodynamic wheels, and digital side mirrors that help the model to have a drag coefficient of 0.253. The robocar also sports double-laminated glass as well as rear coach doors for easy entry and egress. Speaking of the doors, they have PalmRead technology that allows people to access the vehicle without keys or their phone.

In terms of size, the robocar measures 217.5 inches (5,525 mm) long, 89 inches (2,261 mm) wide, and 78.3 inches (1,989 mm) tall with a wheelbase that spans 124 inches (3,150 mm). This means the model is significantly larger than other electric crossover such as the Cadillac Vistiq and Tesla Model X.

A Transforming Cabin

The interior looks basic, but it’s notable for having retractable pedals and a retractable steering wheel. When the latter is tucked into the dash, a display slides over so it’s in front of the ‘driver.’

Speaking of screens, there’s a front passenger display as well as a dual-screen rear entertainment system. Tensor also said the model comes nicely equipped with a heated steering wheel as well as heated, ventilated, and massaging seats. Other highlights include suede and fabric upholstery, a 128-color ambient lighting system, and dual wireless smartphone chargers.

While the interior is pretty bland, the company claims the model is the “world’s first AI agentic car” and goes “far beyond a basic voice assistant.” In particular, they said an “AI agent continuously processes data from in-cabin cameras, microphones, and other sensors.” The company claims this will enable owners to say something along the lines of “Pick up Mom from her house and bring her here” or “Drop me off at the airport and then return home.”

Despite all the monitoring equipment, Tensor said they’re focused on privacy and all data is processed and stored locally. However, they noted “users can access their data via the end-to-end encrypted smartphone app” and, let’s face it, anything connected to the internet isn’t 100% safe. On the bright side, if you’re concerned about privacy and security, there are physical camera covers and microphone off switches.

Electric And Autonomous

Powertrain details are sparse as the company said the model is an EV with a 112 kWh battery pack. When the battery is low, it can go from a 20% to 80% charge in as little as 10 minutes. Tensor also mentioned the crossover has four-wheel steering and an air suspension.

The real star is the Level 4 autonomous driving technology that allows the vehicle to “operate entirely without driver input under defined conditions.” This is enabled by over 100 sensors including 37 cameras, 5 lidars, 11 radars, 22 microphones, 10 ultrasonic sensors, 3 IMUs, GNSS, 16 collision detectors, 8 water-level detectors, 4 tire-pressure sensors, and 1 smoke detector.

Of course, if you prefer to drive yourself, you can still take the wheel and operate it like any other car.

Since the robocar is designed for normal people who won’t spend time prepping it for every journey, Tensor had to develop a way to protect and clean the various sensors. As a result, there’s an intelligent cleaning system with dedicated wipers and nozzles as well as protective sensor covers that deploy when the vehicle is not in use. The car also has self-diagnosis to ensure everything is in working order.

The sensors feed data to an onboard supercomputer with 8,000 TOPs. There’s also a “dual-system AI” that “mirrors human cognition.” The company said, “System 1 delivers fast, reflexive responses through imitation learning from expert drivers, while System 2 uses a sophisticated multimodal Visual Language Model to reason through rare and complex edge cases.” The end result is supposedly confident navigation even in rain or fog.

Tensor went on to say their “advanced electrical and electronic architecture delivers full-stack redundancy – across power, communications, and control – ensuring fail-operational performance in any scenario.”

Could Arrive As Early As Next Year

While a number of questions remain, the company has partnered with VinFast, who will build the robocar at their Hai Phong factory in Vietnam. If everything goes according to plan, the first deliveries will occur in the second half of 2026 and the model will be offered in Europe, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates.

Lastly, the company has partnered with Marsh to offer the “world’s first insurance policy for robocars.” This promises to deliver cheap rates as “data shows that L4 autonomous vehicles are safer, and your insurance premiums should reflect that.”

On paper, the calculation seems simple enough: If well-trained drivers operate school buses equipped with safety devices that reduce traffic collisions, then insurance claims and premiums should likewise decrease.

In reality, insurance brokers say no single piece of technology or training technique is enough to warrant lower premiums on its own. But combined, these tools can help protect a fleet from liability in court.

“The biggest takeaway is it hopefully leads to less claims, which would ultimately drive down your cost,” said Kyle McClellan, a practice leader at NSM Insurance Brokers. “There’s not a direct correlation, like when you bundle your insurance together and you’re going to save 10 percent. But fewer claims leads to fewer dollars spent on insurance.”

While carrier insurance rates vary depending on fleet size, vehicle type, routes and loss history, rates have consistently trended upward nationwide.

Over the past year, the Consumer Price Index calculated motor vehicle insurance rising an average 6.4 percent. In one extreme case, the David School District in Oklahoma saw a 328-percent increase in insurance rates from 2020 to 2022, rising to $261,000 from $61,000 annually, per Education Week.

Rising rates often result in shopping around for better policies. When it comes to negotiating rates, McClellan said two pieces of school bus technology are particularly
attractive to providers: Cameras and telematics.

“Those allows us on the broker side to meet with school bus contractors, identify what they’re doing, how they’re doing certain things, and then go to the insurance market and tell them, here’s the reasons why you’d training fall by the wayside.

“Now they got the big screen in front of them and every time someone burps it records it, and they have to look at it instead of paying attention to what they’re doing on the road,” quipped school bus training expert Richard Fischer, who has owned Trans-Consult since 1977, after serving as a transportation and safety director in California.

Having been called as an expert witness too many times to count, Fischer said three questions often come up in court that can be addressed with training, studying driver manuals and simple record keeping: Did the driver have a duty? Did the driver previously breach this duty? What was done to correct the breach of duty?

State CDL driver manuals and the National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures manual updated by the National Congress on School Transportation don’t just lay out best practices, Fischer said. It is a driver’s job to know the manuals forward and backward.

“A driver-carrier has one duty to perform, and that’s to do everything possible to make sure that the drivers are safe to drive the bus and the kids are protected,” Fischer said.

In addition to training, he advised documenting hours and topics covered, with each driver documenting their own record in their own handwriting. A trainer writing records might implicate questions of falsified records. Most importantly though, Fischer said
don’t make excuses.

“Quit arguing the point we don’t have any money to do safety meetings or we’re short drivers, so we have to excel our training program,” Fischer said. “Everyone says we transport the most precious cargo in the world—then do it.”

Besides providing benefits on the road, many insurers favor having vehicles equipped with telematics and cameras for their benefits in court, particularly as an upward trend of high judgments increases financial risk.

Along with an increase in court-ordered “nuclear verdicts” that brokers say have resulted in increased insurance costs across the board, recent years have seen a trend of higher judgments in urban areas and lower judgments in rural areas impacting localized policy prices.

Regardless of who is at fault, Lisa Paul of Paul Consulting said juries are often poised to believe the little guy over a large company, a trend she has seen play out time and time again over a 32-year career in commercial insurance.

“Courts tend to rule against the big power unit, where people perceive there’s big dollars, whether that’s a school district or a large public company,” Paul said. “But the utilization of external facing cameras has been extremely helpful in improving the exoneration rates of accidents.”

A 2023 survey by the American Transportation Research Institute found driver-facing camera footage exonerated drivers in more cases than it provided evidence of negligence. Per legal experts surveyed, the presence of cameras seemed to drive settlements in nearly 75 percent of cases reviewed. Besides being useful in court, many commend telematics for catching both positive and negative behavior, providing opportunities for coaching and praise.

“It gives an opportunity to enhance and improve driver coaching of how the driver, the school bus operator themselves can improve their driving behavior based on how the vehicle is monitoring that during the course of transit,” Paul said.

Jeffrey Cassell, president of the School Bus Safety Company and a former director of safety for Laidlaw, credits certain camera systems, like National Express’ G-force activated DriveCam, with driving quick settlements.

“What happens is, if you’re liable, you admit to liability immediately and get to negotiating the amount and there’s no discovery. And if you’re not liable, you just get the video and send it to the plaintiff attorney,” Cassell said. “Attorneys don’t chase rainbows.”

While investing in technology and maintaining training helps avoid crashes, thus reducing insurance claims, the staunch safety advocate said keeping students safe should be motivation enough to follow best practices.

“Otherwise, it’s doing it for the wrong reason,” Cassell said. More than school bus technology and training, Cassell said loss records are ultimately the most important factor in obtaining a favorable insurance rate.

“Now if you then say to them, hang on a minute, we’ve just fitted extended stop arms, which should reduce the accidents, can we have a reduction in the premium? They’ll
say, of course you can, as soon as it shows up in your losses,” Cassell said. “If your losses go down, your premium will go down.”

Editor’s Note: As reprinted from the July 2025 issue of School Transportation News.

---

Related: (STN Podcast E266) Recap STN EXPO West: It All Comes Back To Safety & Training
Related: NC Transportation Manager Channels Passion for Education, Safety into Children’s Books
Related: Not So Fast: Technology Eyes Speed Reduction in School Buses
Related: New Technology Provides Data to School Bus Routing

The post Does Safety Save Money? appeared first on School Transportation News.

A federal judge has ordered Wisconsin to stop denying unemployment insurance to applicants who are also on Social Security Disability Insurance. (Getty Images creative)

Updated Wednesday, 7/16/2025, 2 p.m.

Wisconsin residents who receive federal disability benefits and also work will no longer be denied unemployment compensation if they get laid off under a federal court order issued this week.

The order effectively ends enforcement of a 12-year-old state law that disqualifies people from unemployment insurance coverage if they collect Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments.

The order, released late Monday, comes a year after U.S. District Judge William Conley found that the Wisconsin law barring unemployment insurance for SSDI recipients unlawfully discriminates against people with disabilities.

The Department of Workforce Development (DWD) issued a comment Wednesday, after this report was initially published, stating, “The Department of Workforce Development did not oppose a prospective preliminary injunction in this case from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin but cannot provide additional comment at this time due to ongoing litigation.”

The law blocking unemployment compensation for SSDI recipients was passed in 2013 with only Republican support in the Legislature and signed by then-Gov. Scott Walker. It was based on the premise that most SSDI recipients didn’t work and that when they filed UI claims they were “double-dipping” and probably committing “fraud.”

That impression is false, according to Victor Forberger, whose legal practice is almost exclusively focused on unemployment insurance claims.

Many people with disabilities who qualify for SSDI are still able to do some kinds of work, and they often want and need to, Forberger said Tuesday.

“They need to do this work to support themselves,” Forberger said. The typical monthly SSDI benefit “is a bare minimum, and in some cases not even that.”

Forberger, working with two other law firms, filed a lawsuit in 2021 against Amy Pechacek, secretary-designee at the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD). The suit charged that banning SSDI recipients from filing for unemployment compensation when they lose work violates the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

In a ruling July 17, 2024, Conley sided with the plaintiffs. Despite that ruling, DWD continued to reject unemployment insurance claims made by people receiving SSDI payments.

Conley’s new order, filed late Monday, instructs Pechacek and DWD to stop enforcing the UI ban for people on SSDI.

The lawsuit was filed as a class action. In an order June 11, Conley certified two classes of people with claims under the litigation: Those who applied for unemployment benefits in Wisconsin after Sept. 7, 2015 and were denied because they received SSDI benefits; and those who had received UI benefits after that date, but then were ordered to pay them back because they also were on SSDI.

The plaintiffs and DWD still differ on how to handle remedies for the two classes of people.

DWD wants to reprocess their claims from the start, and argues in a court brief that some of them might still not qualify for unemployment insurance for other reasons. The plaintiffs want the order to include a provision for supplemental filings and hearings.

Conley’s order requires both sides to work out a remedy agreement by Aug. 18, and if they can’t, to each submit a proposed order and identify their differences.

The judge rejected two other proposed classes: UI claimants who were penalized after failing to report their SSDI income, and SSDI recipients who never filed for unemployment insurance after losing a job.

The penalties in the law were not part of the lawsuit, Conley wrote. Identifying who might have applied for UI and did not was “unknown and unknowable,” he added.

Forberger said Tuesday that there may be several thousand people who were on SSDI and were denied unemployment compensation as a result. Once the remedy details are resolved, he expects that notifying everyone who qualifies for payment will be a complicated and time-consuming task.

“We’ve got to do a lot of outreach and a lot of explanation,” Forberger said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Millions of nondisabled working-age adults have enrolled in Medicaid since the Affordable Care Act expanded eligibility in 2014.

Medicaid is health insurance for low-income people.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 2024, average monthly Medicaid enrollment included 34 million nonelderly, nondisabled adults – 15 million made eligible by Obamacare.

Two smaller estimates used U.S. Census survey data.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers said there were 27 million nondisabled working-age (age 19-64) Medicaid recipients in 2024.

That’s similar to the 26 million for 2023 estimated by the nonpartisan health policy organization KFF. That figure includes people who are disabled.

KFF said 44% worked full time and 20% part time, many for small companies, and aren’t eligible for health insurance.

Medicaid costs nearly $900 billion annually, two-thirds from the federal government, one-third from the states.

Forty states, excluding Wisconsin, adopted the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.
Congress is considering President Donald Trump’s proposal adding work requirements for Medicaid.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• KFF: The Affordable Care Act 101
• U.S. Health and Human Services Department: What’s the difference between Medicare and Medicaid?
• Congressional Budget Office: Medicaid June 2024
• White House Council of Economic Advisers: Medicaid Community Engagement Requirements and the Value of Work
• KFF: Understanding the Intersection of Medicaid and Work: An Update
• Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission: Medicaid Spending by State, Category, and Source of Funds, FY 2023 (millions)
• KFF: 5 Key Facts About Medicaid Expansion

Have millions of nondisabled, working-age adults been added to Medicaid? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Meet the 2025 Innovator of the Year, Gaurav Sharda! As the chief technology officer of Beacon Mobility, Sharda is approaching innovation with a people-focused and technology based mindset to create positive outcomes for the industry. Read more about Sharda’s story as well as contracting focused features on the future of AI, safety in alternative transportation, NCST resolutions, and guidance for non-yellow school bus transportation.

Read the full July 2025 issue.

Cover Story

‘Here to Serve’ People With Technology
Gaurav Sharda of Beacon Mobility, STN’s Innovator of the Year, focuses on developing AI-based and people-principled technology designed to make easier the jobs of transportation end-users.

Features

Ensuring Student Safety, No Matter the Vehicle
Alternative transportation vehicles are ingrained in student transportation operations, as the recent National Congress on School Transportation proved. Several service providers weigh in on how they are meeting recommended safety measures.

Leadership Perspectives on the Future of AI
Executives with the leading school bus contractors in North America discuss their thoughts on artificial intelligence and the impact on their operations as well as the students, parents and school districts they serve.

Special Reports

Does Safety Save Money?
With insurance costs skyrocketing, technology like video cameras and telematics combined with driver training are tools to help student transporters mitigate their liability.

Q&A: Historic Endeavor
Tyler Bryan, the National Congress on School Transportation alternative transportation committee chair, discusses the importance of the newest addition to national specifications and procedures and breaks down the process for creating the proposals from scratch.

Feedback
Online
Ad Index

Editor’s Take by Ryan Gray
Securing Industry Wins

Publisher’s Corner by Tony Corpin
Smart Buses, Smarter Outcomes

The post July 2025 appeared first on School Transportation News.

A Florida man’s 16-year journey to collect a million-dollar court judgment against a school district following a life-altering school bus crash finally succeeded. Elsewhere, others aren’t as lucky.

When he was 16 years old, Marcus Button was in a car crash with a school bus, leaving him with life-altering traumatic brain injury, loss of vision, and a 16-year journey to collect a court-ordered, million-dollar judgment for damages.

On Sept. 22, 2006, Button was riding to school in the passenger seat of his friend’s Dodge Neon when a school bus took a left turn through an intersection and into the car’s path, leaving Button’s friend with little time to brake. Button struck the windshield.

“Not a week goes by that I don’t think about this case,” said Button’s attorney, J. Steele Olmstead of Tampa, Florida. “He was a hardworking young man who mowed lawns at the trailer park where he lived. He was going to grow up, learn a trade, have a wife and kids, but now he’s just a shell.”

Olmstead said Button planned to enter his family’s drywall business, but his crash-induced disabilities closed that future.

The Button family sued the Pasco County School Board of Land O’ Lakes, Florida, the following year. At trial, Button’s own expert left ambiguous the issue of whether Button had been wearing a seatbelt, prompting the jury to find him 15 percent at fault and his friend 20 percent at fault, placing the remainder of the responsibility on the school district’s shoulders.

In 2009, the jury awarded Button $1.38 million and his parents $289,396. Despite the court judgment, the school district paid out just $163,000 until this year. State law caps government liability at $200,000 for individuals and $300,000 per incident.

While government immunity shields public entities from most lawsuits, and depending on the state, can provide strict liability caps, Florida has an unusual workaround: The claims bill process.

The system dates to the 1830s, when the builder of the state’s second capital building was stiffed on his bill, prompting the territorial legislature to step in with the power of the purse to award his costs.

“The Florida Legislature has a history of trying to right wrongs when the courts can’t,” said Lance Block, who has practiced personal injury law in Florida for more than four decades.

Last year, Block helped reach a $1.2 million settlement with the Pasco County School Board that included the entity’s support on Button’s claims bill. This pact helped push the unopposed passage of Button’s claims bill this year, after the legislature had rejected at least four similar efforts. Both the House and Senate unanimously approved the measure in April.

“People do get justice from time to time, when and if they were in another state where they would be capped, there would be no other recourse,” said Block who has carried about 50 claims bills to the legislature.

Had Button’s crash occurred in another state, it is unlikely he would have found success in overriding the government immunity cap.

After Ashley Zauflik lost her leg in crash with a school bus, a Bucks County Court in Pennsylvania granted her a $14 million judgment in 2011, of which she received the $500,000 allowed under state law. The state supreme court reviewed Zauflik’s case in 2014, and a divided panel ruled the immunity cap did not violate her civil rights.

In other cases, special circumstances even heighten a public entity’s immunity. In a 2021 suit against the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Board of Education claiming a school bus had hit a parked car while delivering meals during the pandemic, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled Gov. Roy Cooper’s declaration of a state of emergency outright barred lawsuits against the government for property damage.

Liability caps on individual cases do not protect school districts from repeated lawsuits, prompting some to outsource the risk entirely by contracting out transportation. Transportation contractors are not entitled to government immunity and take the full risk of liability head on.

---

Related: Florida School Bus Driver Accused of Striking a 12-Year-Old Student
Related: Dismantling Education Department, Mandated Programs Would Need Congressional Approval
Related: Update: Congress Shifts Tide in Regulatory Demands for Clean Energy
Related: Ohio Parents Sue School District After 6-Year-Old Left on Bus for Hours
Related: D.C. Back in Legal Hot Water Over Busing of Students with Disabilities

---

Although immunity statutes serve to protect public coffers from being drained by lawsuits, the system is not without critics who don’t think the government should be let off the hook.

The system also becomes more complicated when it comes to obtaining insurance and filing claims. Government insurance policies are as varied the U.S. topography, with some insurers covering government entities up to their liability cap and others declining to kick on until after the government has paid out the liability cap.

Some states don’t require government entities to obtain insurance at all, and others choose to self-insure through risk-management offices or use publicly funded insurance programs.

In 1992, Block in Florida represented the family of Megan Tucky, a 7-year-old child with a disability who was strangled by her restraint while riding a school bus home. In the middle of the trial, the parties settled the case for $700,000, which did not need a claims bill to be paid out, since the school district’s insurance policy covered the cost.

In Button’s case, Block said the bus that hit him was covered under a Loyd’s of London policy that declined to cover people injured in vehicles outside of the insured bus, a policy he called grossly inadequate for a school district, throwing his client’s fate into the state claims bill lottery.

“Marcus was 16 years old,” Block said. “This totally changed his life, so he’s definitely deserving of this compensation, and I wish it was for more, but this is all we were able to do.”

The post Florida Man’s School Bus Crash Claim Highlights Limits of Government Immunity appeared first on School Transportation News.

The insurance sector is the leading authority on risk, while scaling cleantech requires a deep understanding of risk and risk mitigation. As such,...

The post How the Insurance Sector Can Further Enable Cleantech Scaling appeared first on Cleantech Group.