Injured claimants usually don’t bother retaining an attorney if they’re happy with their employers. The number of litigated claims is vastly outnumbered by those in which the claimant goes off to a walk-in clinic, gets his stitches or whatever, and is back to work in a couple of weeks.
Actually, now that I think about it, that may only be applicable in Florida; we had legislation passed a while back limiting the amount of attorney’s fees payable by the carrier, so there aren’t as many WC attorneys advertising here as elsewhere.
That’s not exactly a cite. You said that the majority of litigated claims are those in which the employee was fired for cause and filed a WC claim as retribution. Do you really think there are so few litigated cases in which the worker is not fired at all but still has reason to file a WC claim (such as the employer refusing to pay for treatment, etc.), or is fired for reasons other than for cause? And if so, on what are you basing your statement other than your experience in the firm where you work?
I can see your point, but this was not the only issue.
Speaking of personal experience, I once worked at a temp agency that refused to give me unemployment benefits after being dismissed several years ago from a phone company. At the hearing it turned out that the lady that was in charge of my case at the temp agency forgot to mention the detail that I had gone to her office to record in person the required information they needed to process the unemployment claim (I got the email evidence that she contacted me later acknowledging that I had gone to her office and the reason for it).
I won the case.
I can make the educated guess that there are many cases of convenient forgetfulness. I did not demand or begged to get my old job back, the issue, as I think this is, is the underhanded things many employers try to get away with after the firing of an employee, regardless if the firing was justified or not.
Fair enough. In my case, the media outlet (a small-market television station) ran a couple of stories prior to the adjutication. The grandfatherly ex-employee looked very believable on-screen, and it was very easy to cast him in the good-guy role – especially since the company continued to no-comment the story. I don’t remember a story running after the results of the adjutication hearing, but there could’ve been one I just didn’t see.
I think you’re confused over how COBRA works. Having the paperwork in-hand to start the COBRA filing process means squat. The woman would be covered under COBRA assuming she paid the back premiums once she filed the paperwork. In other words, Zale’s wasn’t preventing her from having the surgery whenever she scheduled it; she would’ve had health insurance under COBRA once she filed the paperwork, even if Zale’s had taken 60 days to get the paperwork to her.
Sorry. I misread your previous post. I’ll take back the assertion that those cases are a majority, although IMHO they might be.
We’re talking about something pretty subjective here, since there’s no way to tell if a claimant was actually injured or not unless you look at the records on a case-by-case basis. Since we can’t do that, and 99% of these cases never make it to trial, I can’t think of any way that I could back the original statement up (or that anyone could disprove it).
Thank you for the compliment. Here’s my point: there is a good way to rebut [brazil84**'s argument, and a useless way. Here’s an example of a good rebuttal:
Here’s an example of a useless counterargument:
(In response to the question of whether a claim of ‘likely’ is the same as ‘certain.’
Well, certainly it may be the case that they are keeping quiet because they are dead guilty and have nothing to say. I don’t know.
I suspect that they are keeping quiet on advice from their lawyers not to say anything until it has been thoroughly reviewed and checked, and maybe not until it has been proven in court.
Think of it this way: if the employee’s claims to the media turn out to be totally bogus, the company (or the affected individuals) would not be in a position to sue the employee for libel - for one, she is likely to be impecunious, and for another, it would look terrible from a PR perspective.
OTOH, if the company starts to publicly accuse the employee of wrong-doing, and then fails to prove it in court - they may be subject to legal consequences. They have deep pockets and if they are found to have libelled this woman, they may be on the hook for wrongful termination and libel.
I dunno, as libel law is particularly complex and differs by jurisdiction (such statements may or may not be subject to “qualified privilege”). But it may be a possible reason why they will not comment right off the bat.
There are a lot of very good reasons why a large employer might have (and follow) a policy against a specific reply to an accusation like this.
In addition to what’s been said already, the employer might not be confident it has all the facts yet. For example, an in-house attorney has probably interviewed the district manager by now. However, the in-house attorney is probably not an idiot and is therefore is skeptical of what the DM said. The attorney knows that the DM is a human being and quite likely spun, exaggerated, or even lied about what happened in order to put himself or herself in a better light. Even if the truth of the situation is very favorable to Zales, that attorney does not want to get his or her client into a situation where a document later contradicts the DM’s story.
Even if Zale’s is confident of the facts, they might also be concerned about being accused of violating the woman’s privacy rights or defaming her. For example if she was discharged failing a drug test lying about a medical condition.
And even if the first two things are not a concern, there is still the big picture to think about. If they comment specifically about this case, it damages their credibility in the future if they deny comment on another case.
Not on the SDMB there’s not. Employers and “teh corporations” are bad, and employs and the unemployed are good. That’s how it works. Facts are unnecessary. Implying that one should withhold judgment until the facts are in is heresy.
Well, my question is if she was fired while her insurance was still in effect. If her premium had already been paid, she could’ve had the surgery before it ran out and wouldn’t COBRA then be moot? It’s not like your insurance necessarily is cancelled the day you leave employment. Of course, we’ll never know the answer to this question…
Also, doesn’t not sending COBRA paperwork by the deadline mean a law suit on top of everything?
How the system works and how she thought it works are two different things.
Its not out the realm of reasonablness to assume that you loose insurance when you loose your job. Nor is it to be surprised that you can retroactively pay your cobra after 2 months or whatever.
And besides, are you gonna do something expensive if somebody says “hey, its in your rights, you can just sue em later for the money”? I know I’d think twice. Hell, I WON a court case and never saw a dime.
And then there is the hospital. You were fired? You don’t have the Cobra paperwork yet? Oh, the company is sending it to you, you’ll get it on time, and you promise to pay the premium after we have done the surgery? Sure, honey step right in…:rolleyes:
I dont’ know about any of the other story details, but the surgery part seems damn understandable/possible from my point of view.
Potentially, but the time limit is apparently 60 days. Since this woman was apparently separated from employment in March, the employer would probably* not be in default even if the COBRA paperwork were still not sent.
*When I use the word “probably,” I mean the normal English meaning of the word and not the Fear Itself / Guinistasia meaning.
Sure. My point is, Zale’s is being vilified for not getting COBRA information to the woman within a two-week period. If the need for surgery was such that ANY delay could cause her to die (which is the way her son portrayed the situation to the newspaper), then don’t wait on bureaucratic nonsense to have the surgery. On the other hand, if the surgery can be safely postponed a few days or weeks, then don’t criticize Zale’s for not responding immediately.
I don’t know how Zale’s handles their insurance premiums, but every place I’ve ever worked cut my pay in advance for health insurance. In other words, on my March 15 check, I paid for my health insurance through the upcoming pay period (the end of March). If Zale’s does the same type of thing, there shouldn’t have been any problem with the woman having the surgery on 3/26 if she was fired on 3/14. Which is what niblet_headwas saying earlier.
My stepmother, finalist for the “most incompetent executive ever (who didn’t cost the taxpayers billions) award” had these final words to say to a 14-year employee, the second person hired when the company moved to Knoxville, when said employee requested 3 weeks off for an operation:
“You do realize you probably won’t have a job when you get back.”
Said employee was laid off, by phone, 3 days prior to her return.
HOWEVER, there is a happy ending (kind of): Employee hated working there and said the call lifted a whole world of weight off her shoulders, she was dreading having to return that much. Hell, apparently she was in therapy the last 4 years because of job stress!
