If this decision stands up, it could set a really tough standard and possibly destroy some assistance programs that are intended to assist families and also keep the public budget in check.
This is attrocious!! Circumstances of the serious injuries notwithstanding, nowhere does this article infer or state that any carrier was involved in the case. Where is the WC being provided, by the mother acting as a sole proprietor organization for her son’s care? Or was it purchased by the son for his employment and supervision of his mother’s activities while she was “on the job”. Really? When did taking care of your children constitute an employment situation? Our judges need to get to the right answer, not the answer implied by the law, because that is not always the correct answer. Their out is “then change the law” but I say “stop broadening it with senseless decisions such as this”.
If this woman were employed by a public health care firm, why would they use her to care for her own son, who was apparently living in her home? That smacks of conflict of interest. The article does not really tell us who the employer is, terms of employment, or any other data that would allow us to arrive at any type of logical conclusion as to whether or not Workers Compensation (WC) benefits are due this woman. Disregarding that question, since when does a mother anticipate being paid for taking care of her own child? And what type of son would attack his mother for doing so? This case isn’t about WC at all.
If this decision stands up, it could set a really tough standard and possibly destroy some assistance programs that are intended to assist families and also keep the public budget in check.
This is attrocious!! Circumstances of the serious injuries notwithstanding, nowhere does this article infer or state that any carrier was involved in the case. Where is the WC being provided, by the mother acting as a sole proprietor organization for her son’s care? Or was it purchased by the son for his employment and supervision of his mother’s activities while she was “on the job”. Really? When did taking care of your children constitute an employment situation? Our judges need to get to the right answer, not the answer implied by the law, because that is not always the correct answer. Their out is “then change the law” but I say “stop broadening it with senseless decisions such as this”.
If this woman were employed by a public health care firm, why would they use her to care for her own son, who was apparently living in her home? That smacks of conflict of interest. The article does not really tell us who the employer is, terms of employment, or any other data that would allow us to arrive at any type of logical conclusion as to whether or not Workers Compensation (WC) benefits are due this woman. Disregarding that question, since when does a mother anticipate being paid for taking care of her own child? And what type of son would attack his mother for doing so? This case isn’t about WC at all.