Hey guys, did you get the memo? If something outrageous happens, we aren’t allowed to pay attention to any of the technicalities. If you want to talk about something, run it past carnivorousplant to make sure it’s important enough for him.
Are you an attorney, Ace?
:rolleyes:
Nope. Are you one of those people who thinks lawyers are malevolent giggling trolls?
Not sure what the quibble is. I was replying to a statement that he might be suing because his insurance was requiring it.
So no, his insurance isn’t requiring him to sue. And yes, he is suing over injuries sustained while he was on the job.
The broken nose, surgery, and concussion would be covered under workmans comp, and workmans comp would not require him to sue. He is, therefore, not being required to sue. He’s doing it because he decided to.
He’s not asking for money for recklessness. He’s asking for money for damages sustained, and saying that the defendants are liable due to their recklessness. If they had been reckless (his assertion) and he had suffered no damages, there would be no claim.
Now, WC will only cover the medical expenses. It won’t give him anything for pain, suffering, mental anguish, lost memory, or lost earning capacity. (Although I don’t know why he wouldn’t have been paid while he was missing work due to an on the job injury.) If he wants that, he’ll have to sue somebody. Of course, he’ll have to do it successfully, in order to get paid, and that doesn’t look very likely if the article is accurate.
I wonder if anyone at the Sheriff’s Office was moaning about their WC costs going up if he continued needing further medical care or ended up on disability. That’s possible. But he should not have any medical expenses that need to be paid. WC does not have a deductable. And his paycheck shouldn’t have been dinged because he missed work for surgery. The whole thing is just odd.
I do not think they giggle.
:rolleyes:
This forum requires that you wait 60 seconds between posts. Please try again in 2 seconds.
Ace309, carnivorousplant, if you guys want to squabble, go do it in the Pit with the gloves off. Here, knock off the sniping.
Thanks,
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
By the title, I thought this was going to be following up on this homicial cop. Guess I shouldn’t be surprised that it’s an unrelated event, involving yet another psychopathic jerk who presumes he’s above the law just because he’s entitled to wear a badge and a gun.
In a perfect world, Dep. Brady Pullen would be being raped behind bars as we speak – but the article doesn’t even mention if he was ever prosecuted. Does anyone know?
This is the Internet…what did you expect?
On the legal issues, there seems to be some open issues. Wouldn’t a police officer have some workman’s compensation for any injuries he receives on the job? That would seem to be the appropriate avenue for him to pursue to be paid for his medical expenses.
And is there any legal doctrine making a third party responsible for injuries a police officer received while on the job because the third party didn’t pass on some information? It seems strange that a person could be held legally liable because they didn’t warn a police officer that a situation was potentially dangerous. Shouldn’t a police officer be expected to already be aware of this?
Oh, crap. Is this April fools?
I was following this a few months ago and was waiting for charges of murder or at least brutality to be charged on the third cop that walked in after it was “under control”, as reported by the first arriving officers on scene.
What difference could it possibly make if he became violent due to drugs (if that’s even the case), given that the 911 call already said he could become violent? That’s giving all the information necessary, surely?
I would think so. They sure as hell deserve compensation for injury on the job.
Well? If you have something to add, leagle beagle-wise, that we haven’t considered I would certainly like to hear it.
That’s funny coming from you.
? While we may disagree on other issues, I consider Bricker to be the Kaselaw King when it comes to legal matters. Whenever I have disagreed with him on legal issues I have usually gained knowledge.
I was referring to the fact that you are the king of asking leading questions without offering your own opinion.
If I ask a question, it’s usually because I don’t have enough information to have an informed opinion yet. I’m sorry if that confuses you.
Other than naming (probably) the wrong defendant, this isn’t as obvious as it seems. Cops are generally entitled to sue perps for personal injuries, just like anyone else. They just have to prove negligence (like anyone else.) The issue here is merely whether the wife was negligent.
Workers’ compensation may “require” a party to sue to the extent that workers’ compensation is a secondary payer. In some circumstances workers’ compensation benefits may be reduced based on the employee’s refusal to recover from an at fault party. In most cases, however, the workers’ compensation carrier would simply sue on the employee’s behalf if he failed to do so.
Part of his claim will be for compensatory damages that are the same as the medical or indemnity benefits offered by workers’ compensation. Obviously any pain/suffering or punitive damages would not be.
It should be noted that Texas (uniquely) has an optional workers’ compensation scheme. It’s unlikely that a municipal employer is not a participant, but probably not unheard of. Non-participating employers have no obligation to provide WC benefits but are also not immune from suit in tort.
In the unlikely event that the cop is not receiving WC benefits this would basically be something forced on him by his employer. Again, even if his bills are being paid he is still entitled to sue somebody for his non-economic damages.
But he is suing the mother-in-law, who didn’t make the initial 911 call and wasn’t there when it all went down.
Hence the “naming the wrong defendant” part. We don’t know how much discovery was done before the complaint was filed, so that might be an honest mistake (the house is probably also in her name) or it might be a dirty trick to implead a deeper pocket.
It appears he had been taking some kind of street drug. What can you expect? The whole situation is absurd.