February 24, 2009, 02:32 AM
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Does the employee have a duty to get involved ?
McDonald's Employee Entitled to Worker's Comp?
Reported by: Lauren Trager, KARK 4 News
Friday, Feb 20, 2009 @05:39pm CST
Last August, a McDonald’s employee was shot after he intervened in a domestic fight.
He survived, but his employer’s insurer now says, they're not responsible.
After fighting for his life in the hospital, McDonald’s employee Nigel Haskett may now be fighting for reimbursement of his nearly $300,000 worth medical bills.
On surveillance tape of the day of the incident, a man apparently slaps a woman in the face. With seconds Haskett tackles him. Seconds after Haskett re-enters the store and then collapses. Police say he was shot multiple times.
A judge in the criminal proceedings called Haskett a hero.
But now, the insurance agency representing McDonald’s says he doesn't qualify for Worker's Compensation in this incident.
And the franchise owner of that McDonald’s says: don't jump to conclusions.
"We are all grateful to Nigel and that's why it is so unfortunate that he's having a difficult time with the insurance claim…however, the fact of the matter is that I do not have control over whether my employee's claim is paid by Worker's Compensation. It is my understanding that there has not been a final determination by the Arkansas Worker's Compensation Commission. I am taking this very seriously, and doing what I can to help and I hope his claim will come to a quick resolution and the right thing will be done for my employee."
But Haskett's attorney says he's entitled to the money, and will fight the insurance company for it in court.
"They do everything they can not to pay a client. That's what we have here. They just try to get out of paying any way they can," said Haskett’s attorney Philip Wilson.
There is a process to filing this claim and only the first part has been denied. The case will now go before a judge, then possibly the worker's comp commission. It could even be appealed to the Supreme Court.
I support the perspective of staying out of a fight that does not directly impact me, or mine. Others here have voiced the view of being the 'Sheep dog', that protects the herd.
I can imagine the duality to follow, but am wonderig if any views change as a consequence to this case ??
When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.