THE WORK ACCIDENT CLAIM: CONTINGENCY OF CHOICE WHEN EMPLOYERS AND WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION FALL SHORT

posted on 26 January 2012 | posted in Uncategorised

No one wants the notoriety of being known as the guy who’s suing the company because he got hurt.

So why do it?

After all workers compensation exists to compensate injured workers in a way that may be deemed equitable for both employees and employers.

To that end, since employers need workers and workers need both work and compensation for that work, the law allows payments to disabled workers filling a work slot proportionate in hours, though not in physical stressfulness, as their pre-injury work. Colloquially, such post-injury duties are referred to as going on “light duty.”

Although it sounds quite doable, the task of finding light duty tasks commensurate with an injured party’s prior workload may not be as easy as it sounds. A maintenance worker may not have the skills to work the reception area. There may not be enough cash register or desk hours to accommodate an injured stock person.

What then?

Sadly, there are employers who may just report that they have no light duties available to an injured employee. Whereupon, said employee feels fully justified in firing an employee who cannot fill the specified duties of his job.

All of a sudden Marty, the maintenance guy who cracked an ankle bone when a defective water bottle he was replacing burst, and Sally, the stock girl who wrenched her shoulder when a pyramid of stacked cans landed on her, are each of them out of work.

Even should the scenario be less dire workman’s compensation generally stipulates quite specific parameters for the types and amounts of reimbursement it will cover, none of which may take into account the unforeseeable consequences of an injury. Often the long term effects of an injury can only be ascertained much later than the date of the actual injury.

Which is why the good news is that Sally and Marty have three years in which they can decide to file a work accident claim and face up to the notoriety of being that worker who sued the company.