Posted On: July 12, 2007, 1:03 pm CDT

Posted By: stu

He was entitled to his W.C. benefits, because he was not a participant in the horse-play, he was the victim. The employer provided the coverage, as required by law.
Why shouldn't the injured party be able to recover from the individuals who recklessly caused him to sustain serious injuries? Why should they be shielded from having to pay for their actions, just because the employer had state-mandated W.C. coverage.
I have no problem with the employer possibly having a lien against part of any 3rd party suit successfully brought by the employee, and being re-imbursed for part of their W.C. loss.
However, I don't think the victim should have to choose between receiving W.C. benefits or seeking damages from the people who injured him, in a case which appears to be so violent,as to go way beyond mere horse-play, and more accurately be described as an assault.
As an aside, I hope the victim's former co-employees, are now former employees. If ever an action would warrant termination, this would seem to be the classic case.