Sanity prevails! How refreshing! This poor fellow exposed himself (gosh that sounds wrong) to a higher degree of risk by attempting to save those in his care. Anyone else might have tucked and ducked under a desk.
Not to sound heartless, but caving in by a claims department because of bad press sets a bad precedent. What changed in the interim? You either accept or deny. The carrier wanted to look good, but in the P&C WC industry, they look buffoonish.
This won’t be popular, but sanity should have nothing to do with it. Whether or not the law supports that it is a covered loss under the workers compensation act is what should determine if he is covered. I applaud him, am impressed by his actions, but if it is the significance of ones actions that determines what is a covered loss or not, then the workers compensation system is in even deeper trouble than it appears.
I think the point here is that he stayed within his job description through the event, when prudence might have dictated otherwise. He continued to provide care and as a result was injured while working. Had the twister “snuck up” on him and injured him and four others, then I could see that exposure being not covered by current statutes.
Must be tough living in tornado alley where the law could minimize responsibility for comp claims.
He was indeed exposed to peril greater than the general public, who were free to seek shelter as the storms approached, while it was necessary for him to move into the storm path to do his job. This was a bogus denial from the onset – classic bad-faith insurance business practice – some claims manager was going to be a hero but it didn’t work out!
I always thought that WC was there to cover you for injuries incurred ‘during the course of employment’. Since it sounds like this CLEARLY was in the course of his employment what basis did they have to deny the claim to begin with?
Sanity prevails! How refreshing! This poor fellow exposed himself (gosh that sounds wrong) to a higher degree of risk by attempting to save those in his care. Anyone else might have tucked and ducked under a desk.
Not to sound heartless, but caving in by a claims department because of bad press sets a bad precedent. What changed in the interim? You either accept or deny. The carrier wanted to look good, but in the P&C WC industry, they look buffoonish.
This won’t be popular, but sanity should have nothing to do with it. Whether or not the law supports that it is a covered loss under the workers compensation act is what should determine if he is covered. I applaud him, am impressed by his actions, but if it is the significance of ones actions that determines what is a covered loss or not, then the workers compensation system is in even deeper trouble than it appears.
I think the point here is that he stayed within his job description through the event, when prudence might have dictated otherwise. He continued to provide care and as a result was injured while working. Had the twister “snuck up” on him and injured him and four others, then I could see that exposure being not covered by current statutes.
Must be tough living in tornado alley where the law could minimize responsibility for comp claims.
He was indeed exposed to peril greater than the general public, who were free to seek shelter as the storms approached, while it was necessary for him to move into the storm path to do his job. This was a bogus denial from the onset – classic bad-faith insurance business practice – some claims manager was going to be a hero but it didn’t work out!
I always thought that WC was there to cover you for injuries incurred ‘during the course of employment’. Since it sounds like this CLEARLY was in the course of his employment what basis did they have to deny the claim to begin with?