We need to take a closer look at depression cases overall in regards to workers’ compensation, but especially in cases such as this. He killed himself because he was fired – not because he hurt his back. And quite frankly even if he killed himself because he hurt his back his widow should still not be entitled to death benefits. I’m a stickler when it comes to proving mental health effects (granted, I’m just an on-site safety guy) I think most claims are bull.
The company was obligated to take care of the work related injury. Unless they found some shortcoming in that, I’d think the company shouldn’t be blamed for the suicide. Unless the widow could show that he sought mental health care and was denied it, this is just crazy. For one thing…suicide is a crime. Benefits don’t usually extend to cover employees during criminal behavior.
Mass wc law actually says: Dependents shall not be precluded from recovery under this chapter, nor shall the insurance company be relieved from making payment to the commonwealth under section sixty-five, for death by suicide of the employee, if it be shown by the weight of the evidence that, due to the injury, the employee was of such unsoundness of mind as to make him irresponsible for his act of suicide.
Based on the law, the holding doesn’t seem unreasonable.
Another absurd ruling by an administrative judge that defies logical reasoning. I’d bet this guy was depressed before he lost his job. Just another example of the courts unwillingness to make the tough calls.
I guess the ruling followed the letter of the law….but it doesn’t seem right. A company should pay for an injury that its responsible for…but how far to you extend that responsibility ? If this guy got so depressed he didn’t pay his taxes, would the company be facing federal tax evasion charges ?? If he killed somene else instead of himself, would the company be liable for murder ?? It just seems wrong.
As both a claims person, and a person with a chronic painful condition (from an accident), I can see both sides of the argument but honestly, if he suffered depression after injurying his back in the scope of his employment, I do believe that he rightfully should be covered.
I know that I’m going against the grain with my posting but it’s how I feel.
Thanks!
Mike. I can see how a debilitating injury could lead to depression but wouldn’t the company have to deny therapy or not have provided couceling or something ? What could the company have done differently ?? Unless they were negligent in treating the depression I can’t see how it can be held against them ?
Aparently there have been other cases similiar to this for there to be a law… perhaps the companies need to learn how to recognize these suicidal people before they hire them… Or learn to help them through their injuries to get training for another job before they terminate them…
Just a thought…. but if there is a law there is a problem & someone at one time addressed it in order for it to be a law!
To respond to GB, I don’t believe negligence is relevant in Work Comp – I think it is what is called strict liability – if the injury is work-related, as defined by the law, Work Comp pays.
However, if the employee can show gross negligence, they can usually sue for additional damages over and above the Work Comp benefits.
I guess what is most bothersome is that this company is going to get slammed with a big claim, and still not have a way to prevent it from recurring, unless they hire a company shrink to call everyone who’s out sick and ask if they are feeling ok, record the responses and keep them on file.
What would happen if a non injurred employee committed suicide. If you went home and hung yourself because your work load was too much,your boss yelled at you, the snack machine was out of twinkies, etc would that be a workers comp claim for your widow/heirs ?
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.
We need to take a closer look at depression cases overall in regards to workers’ compensation, but especially in cases such as this. He killed himself because he was fired – not because he hurt his back. And quite frankly even if he killed himself because he hurt his back his widow should still not be entitled to death benefits. I’m a stickler when it comes to proving mental health effects (granted, I’m just an on-site safety guy) I think most claims are bull.
The company was obligated to take care of the work related injury. Unless they found some shortcoming in that, I’d think the company shouldn’t be blamed for the suicide. Unless the widow could show that he sought mental health care and was denied it, this is just crazy. For one thing…suicide is a crime. Benefits don’t usually extend to cover employees during criminal behavior.
Mass wc law actually says: Dependents shall not be precluded from recovery under this chapter, nor shall the insurance company be relieved from making payment to the commonwealth under section sixty-five, for death by suicide of the employee, if it be shown by the weight of the evidence that, due to the injury, the employee was of such unsoundness of mind as to make him irresponsible for his act of suicide.
Based on the law, the holding doesn’t seem unreasonable.
P.S. Suicide is a crime only in some states.
Another absurd ruling by an administrative judge that defies logical reasoning. I’d bet this guy was depressed before he lost his job. Just another example of the courts unwillingness to make the tough calls.
I guess the ruling followed the letter of the law….but it doesn’t seem right. A company should pay for an injury that its responsible for…but how far to you extend that responsibility ? If this guy got so depressed he didn’t pay his taxes, would the company be facing federal tax evasion charges ?? If he killed somene else instead of himself, would the company be liable for murder ?? It just seems wrong.
As both a claims person, and a person with a chronic painful condition (from an accident), I can see both sides of the argument but honestly, if he suffered depression after injurying his back in the scope of his employment, I do believe that he rightfully should be covered.
I know that I’m going against the grain with my posting but it’s how I feel.
Thanks!
Mike. I can see how a debilitating injury could lead to depression but wouldn’t the company have to deny therapy or not have provided couceling or something ? What could the company have done differently ?? Unless they were negligent in treating the depression I can’t see how it can be held against them ?
Aparently there have been other cases similiar to this for there to be a law… perhaps the companies need to learn how to recognize these suicidal people before they hire them… Or learn to help them through their injuries to get training for another job before they terminate them…
Just a thought…. but if there is a law there is a problem & someone at one time addressed it in order for it to be a law!
To respond to GB, I don’t believe negligence is relevant in Work Comp – I think it is what is called strict liability – if the injury is work-related, as defined by the law, Work Comp pays.
However, if the employee can show gross negligence, they can usually sue for additional damages over and above the Work Comp benefits.
I guess what is most bothersome is that this company is going to get slammed with a big claim, and still not have a way to prevent it from recurring, unless they hire a company shrink to call everyone who’s out sick and ask if they are feeling ok, record the responses and keep them on file.
What would happen if a non injurred employee committed suicide. If you went home and hung yourself because your work load was too much,your boss yelled at you, the snack machine was out of twinkies, etc would that be a workers comp claim for your widow/heirs ?