[d-ray657]

The workers' compensation system originally began as a compromise. Before it existed, injured workers had to sue their employers for negligence. If they were hurt in the course of their employment, but could not prove negligence, they were on the hook for the medical bills and lost time. Employees who hit paydirt, however, received greater compensation than just their medical bills and lost time. The employers did not like the risks and legal costs.

Therefore, as a supposed compromise, the workers compensation system was established. Employees could get medical treatment and lost time benefits, as well as payments for permanent disability arising from the injury without showing fault. But they lost the right to sue their employer for the injuries, even in cases of clear negligence.

Of course, when there is a compromise between the interests of insurance companies, employers, and workers, it is not going to be the workers who get the long straw. The employers get to choose the medical providers, and most often will use clinics that depend on continued workers compensation business for their client base. Those clinics are most interested in serving the needs of the employers and insurance companies supporting them - minimal treatment and prompt releases from medical care. Also, the lost time benefits and disability payments are capped. There is no way a highly skilled worker can recover his lost earning capacity when his injury deprives him of his ability to continue in his trade. And his lost time benefits are a fraction of his normal pay. An employee capable of earning $1000 to $1500 per week will see his weekly benefits capped at less than $500.

Those disadvantages were not enough for the legislative whores who represent corporate interests, though. They have made it more difficult to show that the injury arose from employment. Also, if the injury is in violation of an employer's safety rules, the worker can lose up to fifty percent of already inadequate benefits. (I was aware of a case of a worker who was in a car wreck while driving for work and had his benefits cut because he wasn't wearing a seat belt - even though the seat belt would not have prevented any if his injuries). And those workers who engage in recreational off-duty drug use can also kiss their benefits goodbye. Because pot use can be detected in the system for weeks after use, the Workers comp laws allow those workers to be denied any benefits. Practically all injured workers are tested for drug use.

Nevertheless, the benefits that are available under the workers comp laws are better than no benefits at all. Any injury that can have long term consequences should be pursued under the workers comp law. More importantly, most individual medical coverage will exclude coverage for work related injuries. If the type of injury is one that likely occurs in the work environment - like carpal tunnel - insurance companies will routinely send their beneficiaries to their employers to determine coverage. That means the choice can be between no medical coverage or coverage under the inadequate workers comp system. It's just not a good idea to get hurt at work.

Regards,

D-Ray