McDonald’s Denial of Work Comp for Worker Shot May Be Appropriate

March 19, 2009

  • March 19, 2009 at 2:43 am
    Question says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    He was taking care of the customer. Isn’t that what employees should do? A reasonable person could say he was within the scope of his employment by taking care of a customer and maintaining order in the business premises.

  • March 19, 2009 at 3:46 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If the employee hadn’t have intervened, McDonalds would be facing a nice fat lawsuit from the woman who was being attacked. I can see the headlines now: “woman brutally attacked in a McDonalds restaurant while employees stood by and watched.” Truly, a corporate ***** thinking only of itself.

  • March 19, 2009 at 4:47 am
    Keeps getting better says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    We see crappy & outrageous decisions from the courts reported here all the time & McDonald’s WC carrier wants to screw the poor guy out of a few bucks??!! Dread’s comments are right on! Hopefully the key word here is “may” be denied & they respond to the spirit & not the letter of the law.

  • March 19, 2009 at 5:46 am
    Additional Info says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well, according to news reports, it’s not a few bucks; it’s $300,000 in medical bills.

  • March 20, 2009 at 7:27 am
    Puulease says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Danny,

    Let me make sure I understand your statement. It’s not dangerous to attack a person until they pull out a gun; is that what you are saying?

    When you attack and fight with someone, even if you don’t know all the consequences or how it’s going to end, you assume the consequences of the original action.

    He stood in front of the door to keep the guy out – that certainly is outside of course and scope and he assumed the consequences of that action as well.

    Now, he will have “hero” and pity on his side if it goes to trial – and he’ll probably win; but that doesn’t change the application of the principle.

  • March 20, 2009 at 8:17 am
    Paul Masley says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It was beyond the scope of his job classification, but come on, this is just another BS Case of Goliath picking on David. Hey, you DA, pay the man’s bills, if nothing else.

    I bet his community will take care of the rest. The young man is a hero and there are not many of them out there today.

  • March 20, 2009 at 9:27 am
    Joanne says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It doesn’t matter. An employee representing McDonalds did the right thing and now he’s getting the “big Mac” in the backside.

  • March 20, 2009 at 10:38 am
    Steven R. Sundheim, Esq. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Of course this should be covered; but for his being employed and on the job and trying to protect patrons from an unexpected emergency situation, this man would not be shot at. Beyond that, McDonalds ought to be making him employee of the year and laying rewards on him rather than allowing its insurer (who it presumably has a lot of influence over given the size client it is) to argue that this was “beyond the call of duty” and hence not covered by workers’ compensation.

  • March 20, 2009 at 12:15 pm
    Danny says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The company can’t have it both ways. If they deny the WC claim then he is entitled to sue directly for bodily injury sustained on the premises. Simply put, the company also is responsible to provide all parties in their establishment a safe environment. I’d rather not have the WC in this case. I’ll bet that several times before this location has had problems that they did nothing about., nor warned the patrons or employees.

  • March 20, 2009 at 1:21 am
    InsIsMyPassion says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Interesting thought. The problem is if he sues, the employer has several defenses that he does not have under WC; including the assumption of risk. The assumption of risk theory/defense states that the duty of care is removed from the employer when the employee voluntarily engages in a risky or dangerous activity. With no duty of care, there is no breach and no negligence by the employer.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*