Work Comp is too heavily weighted towards those evil businesses? How can ***** attorneys make a living? Let’s just open comp back up to the sharks (no pun intended for Sea World), erase the 63%+ reduction in work comp premiums, in the last 5 years, that have helped businesses keep afloat. Between the Obama tax schemes that are killing small business and now questioning Florida comp law, let’s just do away with any laws that are deemed to help evil businesses. Ridiculous!
Based on this story it would seem the payment of $150,000 is too low for a death when you take into account that both companies were investigated and found to have done things wrong. Maybe if they raised this amount to a more reasonable level it would help avoid lawsuits. Figure this employee made $25,000 a year then the award of six years pay for the death seems way too low. What if it was your son or daughter who died? I’d sue too.
Sea World’s OSHA citations were infantile and impractical – including guardrails at the show tanks. Walt’s were similarly superficial. There was no culpability or negligence. WC’s basis is no-fault, no-recourse. It isn’t life insurance sports fans. You have to buy that yourself.
What is a ‘reasonable level’ of money for death of a son or daughter? And why even entertain the concept?
I agree. Statutory death benefits seem low in general. I think the California death benefit is something like $160k. I don’t really know what would be a “fair” value though. Would you do something like, Max(200k or salary x5)?
The article is slanted to the side of how lawsuits ought to be more available, but…it fails to recognize (the author apparently didn’t know) that Comp is a system created because under the tort system workers rarely were paid anything. Sure, in a few cases an attorney and an injure person or family of a deceased worker wants more money, but what about all those who wouldn’t receive “any” compensation because they “assumed the risk” or “contributory negligence” or “a co-worker” was responsible. Without the knowlege of the genesis of workers comp, this article should never have been written!
Following a serious injury and surgery, I have been informed by Disney casting that I will not be considered for reemployment since I am now considered to be a “liability” to the company. I did settle with Workers Compensation following the injury. The reason I have been given is “because you received a settlement”, even though the injury was a result of an improperly placed rubber floor mat. Any suggestions?
Work Comp is too heavily weighted towards those evil businesses? How can ***** attorneys make a living? Let’s just open comp back up to the sharks (no pun intended for Sea World), erase the 63%+ reduction in work comp premiums, in the last 5 years, that have helped businesses keep afloat. Between the Obama tax schemes that are killing small business and now questioning Florida comp law, let’s just do away with any laws that are deemed to help evil businesses. Ridiculous!
Based on this story it would seem the payment of $150,000 is too low for a death when you take into account that both companies were investigated and found to have done things wrong. Maybe if they raised this amount to a more reasonable level it would help avoid lawsuits. Figure this employee made $25,000 a year then the award of six years pay for the death seems way too low. What if it was your son or daughter who died? I’d sue too.
Sea World’s OSHA citations were infantile and impractical – including guardrails at the show tanks. Walt’s were similarly superficial. There was no culpability or negligence. WC’s basis is no-fault, no-recourse. It isn’t life insurance sports fans. You have to buy that yourself.
What is a ‘reasonable level’ of money for death of a son or daughter? And why even entertain the concept?
I agree. Statutory death benefits seem low in general. I think the California death benefit is something like $160k. I don’t really know what would be a “fair” value though. Would you do something like, Max(200k or salary x5)?
The article is slanted to the side of how lawsuits ought to be more available, but…it fails to recognize (the author apparently didn’t know) that Comp is a system created because under the tort system workers rarely were paid anything. Sure, in a few cases an attorney and an injure person or family of a deceased worker wants more money, but what about all those who wouldn’t receive “any” compensation because they “assumed the risk” or “contributory negligence” or “a co-worker” was responsible. Without the knowlege of the genesis of workers comp, this article should never have been written!
Following a serious injury and surgery, I have been informed by Disney casting that I will not be considered for reemployment since I am now considered to be a “liability” to the company. I did settle with Workers Compensation following the injury. The reason I have been given is “because you received a settlement”, even though the injury was a result of an improperly placed rubber floor mat. Any suggestions?