Campion, you sanctimonious pissant

[Astroboy14]

@Oakminster

Your jokefu is weak

Nonsense! Otto is responsible for me forcibly snorting… once I got the “bar fight” joke, of course (it took a second). Fortunately, the gin&tonic was safely back on the table…

Otto, your jokefu is working just fine!

[FinnAgain]

@Lissa

Is there a shitory between the two of you, or more to this story?

Is this the best typo ever?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Otto

And while I did appreciate the opportunity to bust out what I thought was a pretty good wisecrack

That’s not a wisecrack.

THAT’S a wisecrack.

But seriously, yours was damn clever.

[Oakminster]

@FinnAgain

Is this the best typo ever?

Not sure it was a typo. Looks like it could be netspeak. Or maybe it should be.

[Lissa]

@Oakminster

Not sure it was a typo. Looks like it could be netspeak. Or maybe it should be.

oooo, can I coin the term, please oh please?

It was typo, but I want credit for it. However, I was thinking of changing it to shitstory, whaddya think?

[Oakminster]

I like the original form better. Meaning was immediately clear, and it appears to be an original, rather than a combination of two existing words.

Then again, I’m an asshole that pitted a girl for pissing me off, so what do I know?

[Lazlo]

@Otto

And while I did appreciate the opportunity to bust out what I thought was a pretty good wisecrack (which, come on, where’s the love people!), your continued insistence on playing at being the wounded lamb is coming off as more and more pathetic.

I’ll have you know that I just linked your wisecrack to a friend in IM just now.

[Badly Dubbed English]Your Joke-Fu is strong, young master![/BDE]

[waterj2]

Oakminster, I can definitely see where you’re coming from, but a lot of this mess could have been avoided if you had simply been more tactful. In response to:

@Campion

citation to a wikipedia article that itself lacks citations to authority doesn’t even rise to the level of persuasive authority, let alone evidence of binding authority to support your position.

you might have said:

Well, I practice law for a living, and the Wikipedia article seems accurate for a very general overview of the law, which, as I mentioned above, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Really, you and Campion don’t seem to have any real beef with each other. As far as I can tell, the lawyers on this board go out of their way to point out that while they are lawyers, they are not the OP (or whomever)'s lawyer, don’t practice that sort of law in that jurisdiction, etc. Often, one or more of them might get a little testy about us common folk showing up with dubious citations and trying to act as if we know what we’re talking about.

Or, to be put more succinctly, the SDMB is, in general, pretty anal retentive about anything that might be construed as legal advice. And, while it might be annoying, we tend to prefer things this way.

[Random]

Wikipedia as a legal cite? Come on. You’re not really saying that, are you? Ever try that with a judge?

GQ may not be a courtroom, but we take our cites seriously. The place is absolutely lousy with lawyers. In addition, there are at least two non-lawyers (both of whom have posted in the thread) who have built up enough credibility that I’ll trust what they say in their areas of interest.

The point is, we’re really not going to back away bowing because you “practice law for a living”. Give me a break. I practice law for a living in the state and county where the question arose. (Go away, son. You bother me.)

The OP (and she gets props for this) stated that Illinois law applied to her question. You responded, and you came that close to saying that the general rule was that employees could be fired for filing a workers’ comp claim.

You’re wrong under Illinois law, and I’m fairly sure that the majority of states agree with Illinois. Even your wikipedia cite concedes that “Most states also prohibit refusing employment for having previously filed a workers’ compensation claim.” If “most states” prohibit that, they certainly prohibit firing an existing employee for the same reason.

Maybe there’s a few states out there that allow free termination of an employee who files a comp claim. Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me at all. But it ain’t true in Illinois, it ain’t true in most states, and (so far) you’ve failed to give us even a glimmer of a scintilla of a real cite that says it’s true in even one state.

Oh, and in case you’ve forgotten what a legal cite looks like, here’s one for you:

It shall be unlawful for any employer, individually or through any insurance company or service or adjustment company, to discharge or to threaten to discharge, or to refuse to rehire or recall to active service in a suitable capacity an employee because of the exercise of his or her rights or remedies granted to him or her by this [workers’ compensation] Act. [820 ILCS 305/4(h)]

Look, I actually like what I’ve seen of your posts so far. But you’re way off base here.

[Oakminster]

@Random

Wikipedia as a legal cite? Come on. You’re not really saying that, are you? Ever try that with a judge?

Fuck no. I’ve only said a jillion times I was only trying to be helpful. Rest assured I will never commit that horrible crime again.

I did not say anything about Illinois. I’m not licensed there. I did not come that close to saying it was the general rule. Here’s what I said:

Details will vary by state, but in general, if he was doing whatever he was doing for some “company pupose”, worker’s comp will likely cover it. However, again depending on state law, in many cases filing a worker’s comp claim gets the person fired.

In that earth shattering paragraph of apparently gargantuan import, I made at least one reference to variations by state in each sentence, of which there are two. Two. In a post trying to be friendly on a fucking message board. For that deadly sin, I got lectured by somebody I haven’t seen post much, who I did not at the time know to be a lawyer, who treated me like an idiot stepchild. For no damn reason. The information I provided is true. There are some states where you can get fired for filing a WC claim. At least one other poster made a similar statement. It’s not like I’m arguing the moon is made of cream cheese here. She didn’t even challenge the information provided…she just bitched about a wikipedia cite, which is commonly used for basic information on this board. There was no glaring error to be corrected. She didn’t even contribute anyting of substance to the thread. I was, and am offended. Maybe that makes me a horrible person.

[Revtim]

Your not a horrible person, just a person making a gross over-reaction. I think waterj2 is on the mark in post #28.

[Bricker]

@Oakminster

Fuck no. I’ve only said a jillion times I was only trying to be helpful. Rest assured I will never commit that horrible crime again.

I did not say anything about Illinois. I’m not licensed there. I did not come that close to saying it was the general rule. Here’s what I said:

Details will vary by state, but in general, if he was doing whatever he was doing for some “company pupose”, worker’s comp will likely cover it. However, again depending on state law, in many cases filing a worker’s comp claim gets the person fired.

In that earth shattering paragraph of apparently gargantuan import, I made at least one reference to variations by state in each sentence, of which there are two. Two. In a post trying to be friendly on a fucking message board. For that deadly sin, I got lectured by somebody I haven’t seen post much, who I did not at the time know to be a lawyer, who treated me like an idiot stepchild. For no damn reason. The information I provided is true. There are some states where you can get fired for filing a WC claim. At least one other poster made a similar statement. It’s not like I’m arguing the moon is made of cream cheese here. She didn’t even challenge the information provided…she just bitched about a wikipedia cite, which is commonly used for basic information on this board. There was no glaring error to be corrected. She didn’t even contribute anyting of substance to the thread. I was, and am offended. Maybe that makes me a horrible person.

I am a lawyer. But my area of expertise is criminal law, so I have no particular insight to this question.

But I am curious.

What states, specifically, permit the firing of an employee for filing a worker’s comp claim? We seem to have established that Illinois is NOT one of those states.

[Gfactor]

Oakminster, I was not aware that you were a lawyer. I did find the wikipedia article less than credible, and I’m surprised that you as an attorney didn’t pick up on what total piffle this paragraph was:

@Wikipedia

When employers are required to put injured staff on “light-duties” the employer may simply state that no light duty work exists, and sack the worker as unable to fulfill specified duties.

(Emphasis added.)

Here’s the problem I see with this statement (well ok, here are two problems):

1. It’s insurance fraud for the employer to do that. If the employer doesn’t provide light duty, the workers’ compensation insurer has to pick up the tab. If the employer denies that light duty is available, it is defrauding it’s workers’ compensation insurer, and its employee, and a state agency. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. I’m sure it does.

2. The bolded part is really impossible. The employee has been recommended for light duty. If light duty can’t be provided, then the employee is on full disability. Unable to fulfill specified duties does not compute. Of course the employee can’t perform job duties, that’s why the employee filed a comp claim to begin with.

Here is a discussion from the Tennessee workers’ compensation folks about Tennessee workers’ compensation law (other state’s laws may vary–but not in the fashion described by the wikipedia article):

What happens if the injured employee is released to return to work on light duty, but light duty is not available?
The employee should get a detailed description of work restrictions from the doctor. If the employer can provide work within those restrictions, they should do so. However, if the employer is unable to meet those guidelines, the injured employee could remain off work and his/her lost time pay would continue. If the employer pays the employee less while working light duty, the employee is entitled to “temporary partial disability” benefits. These payments are figured at 66 2/3% of the decrease in wages, subject to the maximum and minimum workers’ compensation rates in effect on the day the employee was injured.

Tennessee State Government - TN.gov

[Kalhoun]

@Otto

And while I did appreciate the opportunity to bust out what I thought was a pretty good wisecrack (which, come on, where’s the love people!), your continued insistence on playing at being the wounded lamb is coming off as more and more pathetic.

(Caught it. Loved it.)

[Mangetout]

Well, if nothing else, this thread made me crack open the dictionary; I was pretty sure I knew the definition of ‘sanctimonious’, but I just wanted to check. After that, I checked up on ‘irony’ and found I was right on that one too.

[Chez_Guevara]

@Oakminster

Fuck you, your mother, your father, your children, all your ancestors…

I’m a great believer in free speech, and I know which forum we are in, but is this kind of venomous comment really necessary, especially in this case?

[John_Mace]

Hell hath no wrath like a lawyer scorned.

[MandaJo]

Oakminster, one possible cause of this misunderstanding may be that you haven’t quite got the “feel” of the different fora here yet–General Questions has an insanely high standard for citations, especially for legal matters. It is a long standing practice here that legal matters are answered thoroughly and with actual reference to statutes or previous cases. Had the OP been in MPSIMS, IMHO, or the Pit, your answer would have been helpful and Campion’s response would have been snarky. However, in GQ, the overall attitude is that you should only respond if you care enough to do the research.

Furthermore, there is a special social pressure against non-lawyers giving casual, non-cited legal advice, and remember that when Campion first responded to your post, all she knew is that some guy was giving legal advice using Wiki as a source–she had no reason to know you had the expenience to be able to evaluate that information.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@Oakminster

However, again depending on state law, in many cases filing a worker’s comp claim gets the person fired.

What kind of bullshit statement is that? I’m not a lawyer, and don’t want to be. But I work in the insurance business, and I know bullshit when I hear it. At best, we’ve established that there may be some state, somewhere (I’m still not convinced), where it isn’t illegal to fire a person for making a WC claim. We’ve established that it’s legal to fire a person who can’t do the job any more because of their injury. (In which case they may well be entitled to WC disability payments.) Both of which are a far cry from “in many cases filing a worker’s comp claim gets the person fired”, which implies a cause-and-effect that just isn’t there.

[askeptic]

@Bricker

I am a lawyer. But my area of expertise is criminal law, so I have no particular insight to this question.

But I am curious.

What states, specifically, permit the firing of an employee for filing a worker’s comp claim? We seem to have established that Illinois is NOT one of those states.

Ditto.