The courts need to start considering the employers. Did the employer know that the employee was suicidal? It seems like the employer did what they could for the employee regarding his injury.
What I understand he hurt his back at work, was supposed to go on light duty. The Company said they didn’t have any light duty available and fired him which led to his depression and suicide. Nowhere did anyone say he was depressive before being Fired( which was against Federal Law) and the tort showed cause. Get a grip people and understand Workman’s Comp is there for a reason…
If the article has all the info, then it seems to me the ruling was correct. It says he hurt his back at work. For a short time he was unable to work at all, then he was allowed light duty. However,the company said no lt duty was available–which I doubt, but that’s what they said. I don’t know Mass law, but in NY, if WC says you are eligible for lt duty, they reduce your wage benefit whether or not you actually work lt duty. Had he not been injured, he wouldn’t need lt duty, so that is directly related to the injury. Then they fired him. The article says he was hurt 11/7 & terminated 12/4. I don’t know why his job wasn’t protected for 12 wks, but they don’t give any other reason for termination other than that he couldn’t work. In any case–it is “depressing” to be in pain & it is depressing to be told you can’t work and support your family in the way you are accustomed. Then, add on to that a possible reduction in benefits, and finally you get terminated–all that adds up to a real reason for depression. He wouldn’t even be eligible for unemployment if he was not able to look for a job due to his injury. No where does it say he was depressed or being treated for depression prior to the injury. I know these articles don’t have every detail, but if this was the order of events, it seems the depression started with the injury and the intervening events–the refusal of lt duty and termination–would not have occurred had he not been injured.
Not to offer light duty and then terminate an injured employee is not only poor risk management, it flies in the face of doing what’s right. The law states his dependants are entitled to benefits if the suicide is causally related to the injury. I can see no other reason why he would have killed himself except for the fact he was injured and subsequently fired. As a matter of fact, I would have also brought a wrongful termination claim against the company. This employer got what they deserved.
But just because its casually related doesn’t mean it should cost the company, does it ? After thinking about this overnight; my problem with this is twofold. First, I don’t know how the company could have done differently or how to prevent the next back injury from leading to the same conclusion. Second I question how far down a chain of events the company is responsible for. If his injury leads to depression and the depression leads to weight gain, and the weight gain leads to heart trouble….would that be an actionable claim as well ? Where does it stop ?
You know the expression “Two wrongs don’t make a right” ? This seems to be a case of that. The injury/termination was wrong, but it was wrong of this guy to kill himself. The company could not have forseen that, nor prevented it.
The company doesn’t have to have forseen or done anything to prevent the loss for them to be responsible. (Although they had to know firing the guy was not going to help the situation.) If depression linked to an injury causes weight gain, which leads to heart trouble, that could be compensable. Stranger things have happened. WC benefits are dictated by statute. WC is no-fault and is sole remedy for work-related injuries. There is no liability standard or negligence required. Where does it all stop? That depends on the law. Like it or not, the guy was injured on the job and is entitled to benefits. His employer did not do the right thing.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
The courts need to start considering the employers. Did the employer know that the employee was suicidal? It seems like the employer did what they could for the employee regarding his injury.
Does it have anything to do with the fact that they fired him? Maybe if they didnt fire him the judge would have ruled in the companies favor?
What I understand he hurt his back at work, was supposed to go on light duty. The Company said they didn’t have any light duty available and fired him which led to his depression and suicide. Nowhere did anyone say he was depressive before being Fired( which was against Federal Law) and the tort showed cause. Get a grip people and understand Workman’s Comp is there for a reason…
No doubt that’s why they added the Employers Liability onto the policy too!
I have a liability background, although I do work in a multi-line office.
Why wasn’t he company forced to re-train this gentleman for other suitable employment since they didn’t have a light-duty position available?
Sounds like the company got what they deserved, unless there is more to this story than what is being provided…
If the article has all the info, then it seems to me the ruling was correct. It says he hurt his back at work. For a short time he was unable to work at all, then he was allowed light duty. However,the company said no lt duty was available–which I doubt, but that’s what they said. I don’t know Mass law, but in NY, if WC says you are eligible for lt duty, they reduce your wage benefit whether or not you actually work lt duty. Had he not been injured, he wouldn’t need lt duty, so that is directly related to the injury. Then they fired him. The article says he was hurt 11/7 & terminated 12/4. I don’t know why his job wasn’t protected for 12 wks, but they don’t give any other reason for termination other than that he couldn’t work. In any case–it is “depressing” to be in pain & it is depressing to be told you can’t work and support your family in the way you are accustomed. Then, add on to that a possible reduction in benefits, and finally you get terminated–all that adds up to a real reason for depression. He wouldn’t even be eligible for unemployment if he was not able to look for a job due to his injury. No where does it say he was depressed or being treated for depression prior to the injury. I know these articles don’t have every detail, but if this was the order of events, it seems the depression started with the injury and the intervening events–the refusal of lt duty and termination–would not have occurred had he not been injured.
Not to offer light duty and then terminate an injured employee is not only poor risk management, it flies in the face of doing what’s right. The law states his dependants are entitled to benefits if the suicide is causally related to the injury. I can see no other reason why he would have killed himself except for the fact he was injured and subsequently fired. As a matter of fact, I would have also brought a wrongful termination claim against the company. This employer got what they deserved.
Something tells me that this employer will not be found in a publication that lists the 100 best companies to work for….
But just because its casually related doesn’t mean it should cost the company, does it ? After thinking about this overnight; my problem with this is twofold. First, I don’t know how the company could have done differently or how to prevent the next back injury from leading to the same conclusion. Second I question how far down a chain of events the company is responsible for. If his injury leads to depression and the depression leads to weight gain, and the weight gain leads to heart trouble….would that be an actionable claim as well ? Where does it stop ?
You know the expression “Two wrongs don’t make a right” ? This seems to be a case of that. The injury/termination was wrong, but it was wrong of this guy to kill himself. The company could not have forseen that, nor prevented it.
The company doesn’t have to have forseen or done anything to prevent the loss for them to be responsible. (Although they had to know firing the guy was not going to help the situation.) If depression linked to an injury causes weight gain, which leads to heart trouble, that could be compensable. Stranger things have happened. WC benefits are dictated by statute. WC is no-fault and is sole remedy for work-related injuries. There is no liability standard or negligence required. Where does it all stop? That depends on the law. Like it or not, the guy was injured on the job and is entitled to benefits. His employer did not do the right thing.