Your comments are noted, however the employee had no knowledge that the customer was going to go get a gun and shoot him. That was a totally seperate action and I believe the WC carrier will ultimately pay this claim. Further, the employer is out in the cold if the WC carrier does not pay, and any good lawyer will eat their lunch with a Jury. Affirmative defenses all sound good until the real people get involved. I think I’d settle this as quick as I could.
I find the Adminstrative court’s definition very harmful. Remember, worker’s comp is a Absolute Remedy. Therefore, the injured worker can not sue in any other venue. Now just imagine, if the higher courts uphold this decision. Then under the liabilty theory, “Breach of Duty”, this employer will be subject to greater exposure. This young man, was not directed by his supervisor’s to stop his heroic pursuit. Moreso, the employer allowed this young man to stand guard at the door, where he was subsequently shot. The employer has a duty to provide a safe work enviorment. And not negeligent supervision. The employer needs to undergo a risk anaylsis of this matter and act on its own best interest. Liabilty exposure in this matter to determine if its aggragate exposure under strict liablity will be worse than comp.
This is a short sighted decision, at best. The bad press and loss of revenue has to be more expensive than the claims would have been. This is, obviously, an extraordinary situation, and should have been a no brainer for any claims adjuster.
You want to avoid costing your client company money. This did the opposite.
If anyone paid attention to what was read, it indicates that the employee was shot AFTER he physically engaged the SUBJECT, protected and defended the VICTIM, which you will find is a totally seperate incident, however, occurred on the property owned by McDonald’s. If that argument doesn’t fly – he can always file a TORT claim against Mcdonald’s property insurance, which is different than the worker’s compensation carrier policy. Typically, that property insurance covers injury and liability while a person is physically standing or occupying property owned by McDonald’s company and not related to the OWCP carrier coverage. If someone walked by and tripped over a water hose in the parking lot or stepped in a hole while on the property, they would be able to file a TORT claim. His actions also fall within the scope of a first responder, coming to the aid of a fellow human being to protect against further injury. Where is the city attorney and victim witness coordinator? They are also responsible for prosecuting the offender and to provide payment from victim/witness fund to persons shot and injured while coming to the aid of others, in order to pay for hospital costs.
Well the kid is a hero for sure but what he did was not part of his job description. He could have pushed the guy out, lock the doors and contact police to assist. He could have controlled this whole situation by doing the alternatives, however you can’t blame him for helping the girl out.
This claim will probably end up being case law at some point if they don’t settle. The insurance company will have to weigh the facts of defending this claim vs. accepting this. If the claimant is back at work with no ill effects than settlement will probably be the best option for both parties.
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.
Your comments are noted, however the employee had no knowledge that the customer was going to go get a gun and shoot him. That was a totally seperate action and I believe the WC carrier will ultimately pay this claim. Further, the employer is out in the cold if the WC carrier does not pay, and any good lawyer will eat their lunch with a Jury. Affirmative defenses all sound good until the real people get involved. I think I’d settle this as quick as I could.
I find the Adminstrative court’s definition very harmful. Remember, worker’s comp is a Absolute Remedy. Therefore, the injured worker can not sue in any other venue. Now just imagine, if the higher courts uphold this decision. Then under the liabilty theory, “Breach of Duty”, this employer will be subject to greater exposure. This young man, was not directed by his supervisor’s to stop his heroic pursuit. Moreso, the employer allowed this young man to stand guard at the door, where he was subsequently shot. The employer has a duty to provide a safe work enviorment. And not negeligent supervision. The employer needs to undergo a risk anaylsis of this matter and act on its own best interest. Liabilty exposure in this matter to determine if its aggragate exposure under strict liablity will be worse than comp.
This is a short sighted decision, at best. The bad press and loss of revenue has to be more expensive than the claims would have been. This is, obviously, an extraordinary situation, and should have been a no brainer for any claims adjuster.
You want to avoid costing your client company money. This did the opposite.
If anyone paid attention to what was read, it indicates that the employee was shot AFTER he physically engaged the SUBJECT, protected and defended the VICTIM, which you will find is a totally seperate incident, however, occurred on the property owned by McDonald’s. If that argument doesn’t fly – he can always file a TORT claim against Mcdonald’s property insurance, which is different than the worker’s compensation carrier policy. Typically, that property insurance covers injury and liability while a person is physically standing or occupying property owned by McDonald’s company and not related to the OWCP carrier coverage. If someone walked by and tripped over a water hose in the parking lot or stepped in a hole while on the property, they would be able to file a TORT claim. His actions also fall within the scope of a first responder, coming to the aid of a fellow human being to protect against further injury. Where is the city attorney and victim witness coordinator? They are also responsible for prosecuting the offender and to provide payment from victim/witness fund to persons shot and injured while coming to the aid of others, in order to pay for hospital costs.
Well the kid is a hero for sure but what he did was not part of his job description. He could have pushed the guy out, lock the doors and contact police to assist. He could have controlled this whole situation by doing the alternatives, however you can’t blame him for helping the girl out.
This claim will probably end up being case law at some point if they don’t settle. The insurance company will have to weigh the facts of defending this claim vs. accepting this. If the claimant is back at work with no ill effects than settlement will probably be the best option for both parties.