Lawfare Against Sedgwick: States That Took a Stand

For years, Sedgwick Claims Management Services has operated as the third-party gatekeeper for some of America’s largest employers — FedEx, Amazon, major hospital systems, and more. While marketed as efficient claims management, their system has increasingly come under scrutiny from injured workers, legal advocates, and even state agencies.

As someone personally impacted by Sedgwick's denial tactics, drone surveillance, and legal stonewalling, I’ve begun tracing the broader pattern — and it's far from isolated. Here's how multiple U.S. states have pushed back legally or financially against Sedgwick, revealing a deeper issue within the workers’ compensation system.

🔹 California – $1.13 Million Settlement (2016)

In 2016, Sedgwick agreed to pay $1.13 million to the California Division of Workers' Compensation after violating key rules in its utilization review process. The state found Sedgwick had failed to meet medical review timelines, leaving injured workers in limbo. This case was brought by the state itself, not a private firm — proving that Sedgwick's methods had triggered oversight at the highest levels.

🔹 Tennessee – Fines & Warnings Across Multiple Cases

Between 2017 and 2022, Tennessee issued over 30 penalties to Sedgwick for mishandling claims — including a case where a worker’s surgery was delayed over four months. Despite repeated violations, enforcement has been minimal, raising questions about accountability for third-party administrators. My own case, filed in Tennessee, mirrors many of these patterns.

🔹 Michigan – RICO Claims Filed in Federal Court

In Jackson v. Sedgwick, former employees alleged Sedgwick and its partner employers participated in a fraudulent scheme to block legitimate claims. Though ultimately dismissed, this case showed how far workers were willing to go — even invoking federal RICO laws to fight back.

🔹 Florida – Surveillance & Benefit Denials Debated in Court

In Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams, Florida’s First DCA ruled against a worker injured while working from home. The case reignited debate about what counts as a compensable injury — especially in remote work settings — and Sedgwick's pattern of strict denial over interpretation.

🔚 Why This Matters

Each state’s action reveals part of a bigger story: a nationwide pattern of aggressive denials, policy loopholes, and surveillance culture that puts corporate cost-cutting above injured workers' rights. My personal experience — as outlined at joefulmer.com — shows how this system can spiral beyond denial into retaliation and suppression.

It’s time we connect the dots. And it’s time others come forward.

📢 Call to Action:

If you’ve faced a denial, delay, or suspicious handling of your workers’ comp claim by Sedgwick (or similar firms), reach out. Join the movement. Share your story.
📥 Contact: support@joefulmer.com
📝 Submit a story: joefulmer.com/lawfare
🔗 Support the mission: gofundme.com/f/joefulmer