June 23, 2005
Now, if you read Mr. Gantt's (the worker's compensation lawyer) article, you'd think the proposed law would not allow any worker who was injured on the job any money at all. He calls the bill "harsh and unfair." He claim that the bill will move people from worker's compensation to welfare. He says that the bill will result in "more bankruptcies."
So, what's in this bill that "should be buried and rejected?"
No compensation shall be allowed when the employee refuses to submit to or cooperate with a blood or other applicable medical test after the accident, if the employee had previously been warned in writing by the employer that such refusal would forfeit the employee's right to recover benefits under this Article.
So if you get injured on the job because you're hammered, you don't get free cash.
An employee who reports an injury or illness to the employer that the employee claims is work‑related waives any physician‑patient privilege with respect to any condition or complaint reasonably related to the condition for which the employee seeks compensation.
So if you want to claim you've been injured, you have to actually allow your employer and your employer's insurer access to the medical records that prove you really are injured.
in no case shall the period covered exceed 500 weeks from the date of the injury. In cases of total and permanent compensation, including medical compensation, shall be paid for by the employer during the lifetime of the injured employee.
So, if you're totally disabled, you get cash for your lifetime. If you're not totally injured (that means capable of working in some form), you only get cash for 9.6 years. Then you have to find a job.
Yeah, you're right, Mr. Gantt. This bill isn't fair -- to ambulance chasers and "worker's compensation lawyers."
Posted by: Ogre at
05:15 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.
86 queries taking 0.1308 seconds, 188 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.