I figured, why not start a debate today? (Topic: Worker's Comp)

[Maleficent13]

I am currently dealing with a worker's compensation issue at my place of employment. I have an employee (desk job) who, two years ago, fell down a flight of stairs in our building while on her way to have a cigarette. She was on break. She did major damage to her knee.

Two years later, she has gotten a settlement from the courts for a percentage of disability. She continues to work fulltime. Also, we have been told by the courts that her disability will be re-evaluated every year or two, and as she ages they are pretty sure it will get worse and they will increase the percentage.

I don't have a problem with worker's comp if the worker gets injured while performing their job duties. I have another person who was injured lifting a storage box as part of her duties and I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that because this other person -who was on break, leaving to smoke-couldn't keep her balance long enough to make it down the stairs, we have to pay this out for the rest of her life. It just feels wrong to me.

Now, let the debate begin.

 

[mtblujeans]

Hmmmm.....Worker's Comp is different from state to state. The laws are in place because, IMHO, very often the details become high octane and it can be hard to come to a conclusion. If you were to look at stats on Worker's Comp related injuries, most people who become injured have done something inappropriate or against the accepted 'safe way' to injure themselves (again, IMHO). In some states, if you are not able to go back to your job of injury or can no longer work full time, you cannot go back to a full-time job after your settlement. Perhaps your frustration is brought on by things that you can lobby to change in your state.

 

[tkd lisa]

I see your point about her being on break, but the rules do say that time is usually covered.

I had two support people who worked for me. They were in a rental car returning from a business trip and were in a severe accident. Workmans comp covered their injuries, etc. But it turns out the two people worked for different companies, and those two companies were headquartered in different states. So the coverage for each of them was different. How's that for unfair?

 

[sha_lyn]

I have to agree with you. Unless it can be shown that a hazzard existed that caused her to trip, I feel that the employer is in no way responsible.

 

[caitycaity]

I don't have a problem with worker's comp if the worker gets injured while performing their job duties. I have another person who was injured lifting a storage box as part of her duties and I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that because this other person -who was on break, leaving to smoke-couldn't keep her balance long enough to make it down the stairs, we have to pay this out for the rest of her life. It just feels wrong to me.

no flames here - i agree.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Originally posted by Maleficent13
I don't have a problem with worker's comp if the worker gets injured while performing their job duties. I have another person who was injured lifting a storage box as part of her duties and I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that because this other person -who was on break, leaving to smoke-couldn't keep her balance long enough to make it down the stairs, we have to pay this out for the rest of her life. It just feels wrong to me.

What if the same person was heading down the steps to go out to lunch? Does the fact that it's a "smoke break" make it worse than any other non-working time during a work day?

 

[Maleficent13]

Originally posted by Bob Slydell
What if the same person was heading down the steps to go out to lunch? Does the fact that it's a "smoke break" make it worse than any other non-working time during a work day?

Nope. Any non-working time is the same for me. They were not injured in the performance of their job duties. Period.

 

[mtblujeans]

But, in Montana, if they are injured on-the-job, they are covered. I did not mean to imply that is not covered. I just mean that I understand an employer's frustration if they seem to cause their own injury. It is still covered. I think the difference is what they are allowed to do after the settlement has taken place. If they receive a large settlement and then, under the law of the state, can go back and do exactly what they were doing before injury under the same pay......that law should be changed! That is not right for the employers!

Lobbying for change is, IMHO, not hard. It takes alot of energy, but it is not a hard thing to pull off.

On the other hand, somethings we just have to live with.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Fair enough. I pretty much agree with you, BTW. I was just curious.

I'm assuming that there wasn't anything wrong with the stairwell she fell in? If not, then, I would think that she shouldn't be getting lifelong benefits from her clumsiness, especially considering she's still working as well.

 

[Lachesis00]

If she is back to work full time, working 100% how can she collect Workman's Comp on top of full pay? She apparently can work.

 

[mrsltg]

Ok, this is interesting. I have workmans comp paying for an injury I received while on the job. Here's what happened...

I was walking into the office kitchen, slipped on the tile, fell forward causing the bridge of my nose to smack into the door knob (BTW... I don't recommend doing that) and then I fell flat on my face. I bled an incredible amount from an extreme bloody nose, and a fair amount from the split across the bridge. An ambulance was called and I was rushed to the hospital due the blood loss and the cut. I got ten stitches and other than a bruised ego, am fine.

Now, I was on company time, but I was going to get a glass of water. My company is paying my medical bills for me. I have no disability from this accident, so no questions there.

I guess my point is this... if you are on company time, regardless of a break, lunch, whatever, it should be workmans comp. I don't agree with paying disability on this woman forever, but I also don't like saying that she was careless because who knows, maybe there was something on that step that caused her to slip?

Oh well... that's my feeling at least.

Erin

 

[Towncrier]

Originally posted by Lachesis00
If she is back to work full time, working 100% how can she collect Workman's Comp on top of full pay? She apparently can work.

She is most likely being compensated for the permanent partial loss of mobility. In Ohio this is called Permanent Partial Disability (or PPD). If an employee is injured and loses 10% use of a hand (for instance), the courts will award a settlement based on that loss that will have to be paid to that employee as long as that loss continues.

I don't think that we should blame the worker who slipped on the steps and fell during a cigarette break. She didn't create the law that provides for this type of compensation. She is just taking full advantage of those rights that have been afforded her by law. Right or wrong, she is entitled to that compensation until such time as the laws are changed.

I may be somewhat biased on this issue because I fell at work several months ago due to negligence on the part of our facilities department. My medical bills were paid by the company and they kept me on salary continuation for 3 months while I recovered from my injuries. I am back at work full-time, but my injury will be with me for the rest of my life. And for that reason, I plan to pursue any actions necessary in the future to receive PPD payments from my employer. Not out of spite or anger. But because I am legally entitled to that compensation.

 

[Maleficent13]

Towncrier, a comment and a question. First, thanks for explaining PPD. I was unsure of how to do this.

Second, you state you will pursue PPD not out of spite or anger, but simply because you are legally entitled to that compensation. So my question is, if you were not legally entitled to it, would you be happy just letting the situation go?

 

[mtblujeans]

Just passin' thru.....

 

[Christine]

Where do you draw the line on this?

One day I was at work and decided to go "out" to lunch with another co-worker. We were out of the building but I was on a "break." I stopped into Sur La Table and they were having a wonderful Reggiano Parmesan cheese-tasting class that I stopped into. They gave me a few free samples of cheese and an apple. As I was walking through the parking lot (on my company given lunch hour), I performed a VERY ungraceful fall that has permanently injured my foot. I WAS "on the job" but on a "break." How does that differ from walking outside to take a smoke break?

 

[mickeyboat]

Also, don't forget, the w/c laws protect the employer too. For most cases, the only recourse an employee has against his employer for on the job injuries is w/c, he cannot file suit independently.

Denae

 

[year2late]

I can't for the life of me see this as a workman's comp issue.

It is the type of thing that clearly needs to be weeded out with workman's comp reform.


Employers should not have to subsidize clumsiness (at least when not performing a work task!)

 

[Beth76]

While I agree that that sucks for the company. She wasn't doing work and it was just clumsiness. However, I know in MO workers' comp covers you for anytime that you are being paid. I used to work for a unioned grocery store and we were discouraged from leaving the building during our break because if we were hurt in an accident (being on a paid break) we would be eligible for workers' comp. While I don't agree that this is right, that's the way it is.

 

[Towncrier]

Originally posted by Maleficent13
Towncrier, a comment and a question. First, thanks for explaining PPD. I was unsure of how to do this.

Second, you state you will pursue PPD not out of spite or anger, but simply because you are legally entitled to that compensation. So my question is, if you were not legally entitled to it, would you be happy just letting the situation go?

If my company had not mentioned PPD to me at the time of my injury, I probably would have let the whole thing drop (not knowing much about the whole WC universe).

I can't say that I feel that I am entitled to anything more than what my company has already done for me. But there are times when I limp past the place where I fell and I start to feel sorry for myself. I have no idea how I am going to handle icy sidewalks in the coming months. And I don't know if the pain in my ankle and leg will ever go away. Am I wrong in thinking that someone should pay for that? I don't know. I wrestle with these thoughts on a daily basis. I just can't answer your question with 100% certainty. But based on things that have happened to me in the past, I would probably would let the situation go.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by year2late
I can't for the life of me see this as a workman's comp issue.

It is the type of thing that clearly needs to be weeded out with workman's comp reform.


Employers should not have to subsidize clumsiness (at least when not performing a work task!)

But she was being paid for her break time. Actually, this affords the company better protection than if she sued under their property liability coverage. Additionally, they have more "control" over the situation, have access to the medical information generated by the claim, etc.