So, the man suffered from an accident that caused paraplegia. I’m sure Worker’s Comp covered their loss to the extent allowed by WC. Years later, the man was unfortunately caught in a house fire and suffered smoke inhalation yeilding death several days later. Home owner’s insurance should cover this loss! It really has nothing to do with WC at all as it did not occur while someone was working…what am I missing here?
It’s a case of how far back do you go for causation. The argument that won was: had he not suffered the work injury resulting in paraplegia he would have 1) not been so exposed to the smoke and, 2) would have recovered from it instead of dying. This ruling opens up a lot of exposure to worker’s comp carriers if we decide to trace causation back this far.
If he got caught in a fire in his own home the H.O. insurance policy doesn’t respond. If he was in someone elses home and the fire was caused by the owners negligence there would be some liability coverage.
The work related disability had nothing to do with the fire, ensuing pneumonia, and death. I suppose if he wheeled himself into traffic and was struck by a car that would be compensable too.
The law firm of Gimmie, Gimmie,and Gimmie are behind this move to unlock the WC system’s money bag. I cannot believe that a poor widow would find it worth her time, energy, and trouble to pursue a small amount all the way to the state’s supreme court, but a greedy law firm searching around for a new vein of gold would. Friends in high places (like judges) will help them reach their goal.
Sandra: Homeowners insurance does not cover accidental death in one’s own home. As you state, work comp was covering the injury, as prescribed by law, which meant the Fisher’s got a defined benefit, which was some percentage of the preinjury wages, each month for a certain period of time. That time had not ended, but according to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-403(e), upon a workers death, those benefits stop, and if the person died “as a result of the work related injury,” the surviving spouse is entitled to an additional 54 months of benefits (which Mrs. Fisher would have gotten if her husband hadn’t died).
So the question was, did Mr. Fisher die as a result of his work related injury. It was undisputed, by all doctors involved, that if Mr. Fisher hadn’t been paralyzed by his work injury, he would have survived the smoke inhalation. The Wyoming Supreme Court has held here, that in Mr. Fisher’s case, his death was the result of his work related injury, just as if he would have died on the day of his accident.
lastbat: You are correct. It is a question of causation. The statute merely provides survivor benefits to those who die “as a result of the work related injury.” The legislature did not define that further, and so the courts must, on a case by case basis. Most states currently recognize causation much broader than Wyoming does. Certainly if the legislature feels this opens causation to far, they can come back and further define what it means to die as a result of a work related injury.
Dread: Wheeling oneself into traffic and being struck is an entirely different fact pattern, and a question that would have to be answered by the Supreme Court. The Wyoming Court has held in an earlier case that someone killed in a traffic accident on the way to see their doctor for a work related injury is not compensable, and that fact pattern is closer to the one you suggest. (Many states would cover the case of someone being killed in an accident on the way to obtain treatment for a work related injury, however.)
Zorro: The Cody Attorney, and firm that represented Mr. Fisher were compensated at a minimal hourly rate per statute for the time it took to prepare and file the appeal. Definitely not a new vein of gold. As mentioned above, the widow got an additional 54 months of a small monthly benefit.
So, the man suffered from an accident that caused paraplegia. I’m sure Worker’s Comp covered their loss to the extent allowed by WC. Years later, the man was unfortunately caught in a house fire and suffered smoke inhalation yeilding death several days later. Home owner’s insurance should cover this loss! It really has nothing to do with WC at all as it did not occur while someone was working…what am I missing here?
It’s a case of how far back do you go for causation. The argument that won was: had he not suffered the work injury resulting in paraplegia he would have 1) not been so exposed to the smoke and, 2) would have recovered from it instead of dying. This ruling opens up a lot of exposure to worker’s comp carriers if we decide to trace causation back this far.
If he got caught in a fire in his own home the H.O. insurance policy doesn’t respond. If he was in someone elses home and the fire was caused by the owners negligence there would be some liability coverage.
The work related disability had nothing to do with the fire, ensuing pneumonia, and death. I suppose if he wheeled himself into traffic and was struck by a car that would be compensable too.
The law firm of Gimmie, Gimmie,and Gimmie are behind this move to unlock the WC system’s money bag. I cannot believe that a poor widow would find it worth her time, energy, and trouble to pursue a small amount all the way to the state’s supreme court, but a greedy law firm searching around for a new vein of gold would. Friends in high places (like judges) will help them reach their goal.
Sandra: Homeowners insurance does not cover accidental death in one’s own home. As you state, work comp was covering the injury, as prescribed by law, which meant the Fisher’s got a defined benefit, which was some percentage of the preinjury wages, each month for a certain period of time. That time had not ended, but according to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-403(e), upon a workers death, those benefits stop, and if the person died “as a result of the work related injury,” the surviving spouse is entitled to an additional 54 months of benefits (which Mrs. Fisher would have gotten if her husband hadn’t died).
So the question was, did Mr. Fisher die as a result of his work related injury. It was undisputed, by all doctors involved, that if Mr. Fisher hadn’t been paralyzed by his work injury, he would have survived the smoke inhalation. The Wyoming Supreme Court has held here, that in Mr. Fisher’s case, his death was the result of his work related injury, just as if he would have died on the day of his accident.
lastbat: You are correct. It is a question of causation. The statute merely provides survivor benefits to those who die “as a result of the work related injury.” The legislature did not define that further, and so the courts must, on a case by case basis. Most states currently recognize causation much broader than Wyoming does. Certainly if the legislature feels this opens causation to far, they can come back and further define what it means to die as a result of a work related injury.
Dread: Wheeling oneself into traffic and being struck is an entirely different fact pattern, and a question that would have to be answered by the Supreme Court. The Wyoming Court has held in an earlier case that someone killed in a traffic accident on the way to see their doctor for a work related injury is not compensable, and that fact pattern is closer to the one you suggest. (Many states would cover the case of someone being killed in an accident on the way to obtain treatment for a work related injury, however.)
Zorro: The Cody Attorney, and firm that represented Mr. Fisher were compensated at a minimal hourly rate per statute for the time it took to prepare and file the appeal. Definitely not a new vein of gold. As mentioned above, the widow got an additional 54 months of a small monthly benefit.