Workers’ Comp Claim Denied for Tenn. Telecommuter Assault Victim

November 26, 2007

  • November 26, 2007 at 1:36 am
    Exadjuster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I tip my hat to the members os this court!

  • November 26, 2007 at 2:25 am
    Curious says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Agreed. Kudos to them for calling this decision.

  • November 27, 2007 at 9:37 am
    A Conservative says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If this attack had happened at her office would it have been paid? I think so, even though she was eating lunch at the time.
    Since WC laws prevent employees from suing employers for almost any reason the employers should therefor assume greater liability. I think this lady should have been covered under WC. This does not sound like a frivolous case to me.

    Similar incident in Chicago a few years ago: waitress in a restaurant is working and is hit by stray bullets from a gunfight outside. Courts denied WC benefits as well initially, I don’t recall if an appeal was succesful or not.

  • November 27, 2007 at 12:03 pm
    Jeneare says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I beleive the supreme courts are correct in their decision not to grant compensation. The attack was not a direct or indirect response of; a conversation, physcial action, or a disgruntled co-worker/employee/employer of the company, regarding the company etc. It appeared the employee was not on company time and the reaction from the friend/neighbor was not work related. In regards to the company protecting their employees while at work, the company’s security system was not compromised, because the employee allowed entry.

  • November 27, 2007 at 12:35 pm
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The issue of workplace violence and workers’ comp is not an easy one. Some cases are straight forward (robbery at a convenience store – obviously work related) while others are as murky as the river Thames (person gets beat up by ex while at work). I think they made the right call in this case.

  • November 28, 2007 at 9:22 am
    CompMan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    There’s one significant difference here; the woman was in her home, not in a business office. Had she been in a business office her employer would have had the duty to provide some level of security which, if breached, creates an exposure for WC. The employer had no control over a private residence. You can’t have it both ways. There are some inherent risks in working from home.

  • December 3, 2007 at 11:52 am
    LLCJ says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Depends on what the definition of WC is for office workers–does it cover injuries while working, or only while working at the employers offices.

  • December 3, 2007 at 2:23 am
    JInman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What if she had not opened the door for him but he broke in? Is there a difference there?

  • December 11, 2007 at 11:46 am
    SP says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think this one could go either way.
    When a person is on a business trip they have 24/7 coverage. Why would working from home be different? If it happened during the normal business hours. . .
    I dunno, I guess I just could see this going either way.

  • July 25, 2008 at 3:55 am
    Brian says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Have any of you that side with the court/insurance company/chamber of commerce worked out of your home? I can’t imagine you have if you agreed with this ruling. Can you not answer your door when you work from home? Can you not receive work related mail/packages at your home? Mail/packages requiring a signature? How was she to know it wasn’t FedEx or UPS at the door delivering office supplies or work related material? For those of you with common sense and agree that a home office employee can answer their door…once the employee answered the door to find it wasn’t pertaining to work, was she expected to slam the door in the acquaintance’s face? Would you do that to a visitor or acquaintance at your company’s office? Hindsight is 20/20 and it’s easy to say the employee should not have allowed the attacker into the house, but you can’t convince me that the end result wouldn’t have been the same. The attacker knew the employee worked alone from home. He had a plan that day to attack her during the course of her workday. The opportunity for an attack arose due to the employee’s place of work. At home. By herself.



Add a Comment

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

*