Comments on: Worker beaten while on the job: Can he get workers’ comp?

By: ATC-David

ATC-David — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:12:18 +0000

This sounds political, was the guy injured an out spoken republican/democrate with a their opposite number “on the bench?” Otherwise, he should have gotten WC and a call from the pres.

By: Irfan

Irfan — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 01:01:12 +0000

Depends upon the legal entity that the bsniuess exists as. If it’s a corporation, there will always be at least one employee: You! And as soon as you have one or more employees you must have both WC coverage AND pay payroll taxes.If it’s a sole proprietorship or partnership, the owners are not employees and are not covered by WC and the bsniuess does not put them on the payroll. In that case, as soon as you hire your first true employee, the WC and payroll tax requirements kick in.

By: safetyman

safetyman — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:43:20 +0000

What I wish to know, is was the worker at the location of the assault, during his official working hours or past the official work hour. If during official work hour, then he was there at the instance of his company. Then the WC Commission, court and the company mgt could be said to made up of worse than the devil individuals, because even the devil himself will sympatize with the assaulted worker. This shows what workers in most part of the world suffer in the hands of companies managed by evil men/women

By: Gigi

Gigi — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:51:17 +0000

Is it possible to send a printed copy of these comments to the lawyers, judges and all involve in the outcome of these claim?

By: Ginella Calvit-Hedelsky

Ginella Calvit-Hedelsky — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:39:50 +0000

Sad outcome and an outrage…
This worker was not well represented. This employee was at risk and was injured by the nature of his occupation.
Maybe this company needs to review its safety policies and procedures to ensure its employees are protected while at high risk locations.
It seems very upsetting that some individuals can actually live out of the system FOREVER yet others that actually should reap some benefit do not.

By: paduke

paduke — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:14:28 +0000

clearly he wasn’t represented by a jury of his peers!!!

By: Virginia

Virginia — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:28:33 +0000

Does this mean if an amored truck driver gets robbed & injured while on duty, he doesn’t get compensation either? How about the apartment complex manager? If he or she were going around collecting past due rent & was assaulted, does that mean they don’t get compensation?

By: David

David — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:09:44 +0000

I do not understand the relationship between the money collected and the W/C ruling. Regardless if he had money or not, he could have been the target due to his job and retaliation for his earlier disconnection. The fact that they stole his wallet was secondary to the beating.

If he had been dishonest and pocketed the money he had collected saying the muggers took it, he would have also collected the W/C based on the comments from the W/C board.

To Eagle1999, there have been rulings that if you are traveling on business, whether during a meeting or at dinner afterwards, you are covered. Recent ruling allowed W/C for a worker who injured themselves while having intercourse during a company business trip.

By: creon

creon — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:07:03 +0000

He was in that location because he had to be to perform his work duties. Also, the article stated that he had collected a cable box from one of the assailants four weeks earlier. Whether or not they succeeded in robbing him, it is my opinion that the two men knew he worked for the cable company and carried money. This is a ridiculous ruling. I’ve seen articles where a worker who was riding his bike home from work gets scared by a dog & wrecks his bike, off the clock, and receives benefits. Virginia needs to change that law.

By: Willy

Willy — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:56:44 +0000

The guy was on the clock doing work for the company, he should be paid.

By: Pat T

Pat T — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:27:14 +0000

Clearly this man should have been granted his WC claim. Based on all that’s posted … We live in a “sick” society …. seems those who try to beat the system & do, get rewarded …. sickening … ’nuff said.

By: deejay

deejay — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:33:57 +0000

Perhaps he was asking for more than he expected to get…they could settle for less couldn’t they? People would rather pay their cable bill and not pay rent if they have to choose…that’s how important cable is to some people. With priorities like that this job is not for everyone. There is plenty of risk involved and there should be compensation and insurance for that kind of risk.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:42:56 +0000

I unerstand compensating him for his medical bills and lost work but he also sought a disfigurement award, TTD and a lifetime medical award. Maybe one or all of those things made him appear greedy? There is not much detail as to what the actual injury and permanent disability/disfigurement was.

By: BlackGold

BlackGold — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 03:37:47 +0000

Just for clarity – Mr. Moorefield was not ‘the cable guy’ – he was ‘the cable REPO guy’, He worked for a repo company which had a contract with various cable providers. If ever there is a dangerous job, it is the repossession job. Nobody likes those individuals – that’s why there’s a popular ‘reality’ TV show about vehicle repo companies.

By: Larry Capello

Larry Capello — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:26:49 +0000

The cable guy should be getting hazardous duty pay, you would not catch me going into a rough neighborhood disconecting someones cable boxes during these hard economic times, It could have been a lot worst.
The cable company placed him at risk ! Pay him!

By: Deb S.

Deb S. — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:22:47 +0000

Seriously!?! He was on assignment, doing his job and someone didnt like it. Even if it was a random mugging, (which is doubtful), he was there because of work. If one of our employees slip on ice and fall while walking to a patients door, work comp pays ……please, this one is easy. The ruling is wrong, he should have been compensated.

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:54:57 +0000

It seems to me he was assaulted specifically because he was the cable guy, in retaliation for disconnecting teh cable. Whether the assailants knew or did not know he had money on his person is irrelevant.

He should have received worker’s comp.

By: Sharon

Sharon — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:12:54 +0000

He DEFINITELY SHOULD GET COMPENSATION. HE WAS IN THE LOCATION BECAUSE OF HIS JOB, NOT FOR ANY OTHER REASON. I GUESS THE CABLE COMPANY IS NOT A GOOD PLACE TO WORK!!!
GIVE THE MAN HIS MONEY AND THEN SOME.

By: Sharon M

Sharon M — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:51:45 +0000

I agree with almost all that has been said, but if there was an earlier disconnect in that area then why haven’t the police been able to run down all the suspects in that area to see if they fit the discription of the assailant? If they could catch the perp, then he should appeal. Even if Frank could prove that he did have a disconnect in the area recently, it could prove that there existed customers that could have retaliated. We never get the details of the legal proceedings to see what was attempted to prove Frank’s defence.
PS: I would have thought the money would have been locked in the truck!

By: Bruno

Bruno — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:33:08 +0000

I am not a cable guy but he should have been compensated due to the fact that his job placed him in this area. If he was off duty he would not have been in this area.

By: deejay

deejay — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:26:03 +0000

Utterly ridiculous! The general public wouldn’t be behind the apartment complex where they could easily get mugged. It was part of his job whether they knew he carried cash or not.

By: al

al — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:36:12 +0000

worker comp can not cover everyone that gets mugged. If the assailants knew he was collecting money and cutting services they would have taken company money as well. Seems like just bad luck and a testimony to the sad state of our society.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:32:20 +0000

I agree with Alan, this is one of the very few situations where I think WC should be awarded. Isn’t this the exact reason why it was established? To provide medical service to employees injured while working. Seems like they can never get it right, give one guy work comp for falling on his lunch break and reject it for a man that carries out his job even when placed in a harmfull situation. What a corrupt government we have.

By: Jason F

Jason F — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:56:33 +0000

Sharon-Not only would he be in jail but the company that he worked for would be losing a lawsuit brought by the assailant’s family!

By: Jason F

Jason F — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:52:38 +0000

Those on the workman’s comp team that rendered judgement against this guy for trying to do his job should have all of their utilities chopped for at least a month! The cases I’ve seen on here that I would not give comp to, get it. The ones I would award comp to sometimes get denied.

By: Sally

Sally — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:43:44 +0000

I believe this was one of the few instances where the man should have been rewarded the comp. Not only that, the attackers should be prosectued.
I wouldn’t want to work for a company that would use me and then not back me when i get hurt because of my job.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:39:03 +0000

Moorefield would not have been in that location if it were not for his job. If it was a true robbery they would have asked him to empty his pockets. This man was hurt while doing his job, he was on the clock going too and from jobsites. Wrong Verdict!!

By: heidi

heidi — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:36:48 +0000

It doesn’t sound right to me, he was there because of a work assignment, not as a visitor wandering around. It was in the scope and course of his work! It may be the law, but now always justice.

By: Sharon

Sharon — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:10:10 +0000

Wow!!!!he definitely should have received benefits, if he started to carry a gun to
protect himself, and shot someone, he’d be in jail. Go figure!!!!

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:09:31 +0000

Leave it to the goverment to pay workers compensation to those who don’t deserve it and are gaming the system. Then don’t pay some poor guy like this one who deserves to be compensated! Just like unemployment insurance and social security only pay those that game the system!

By: BlackGold

BlackGold — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:56:14 +0000

According to the Boxco, Inc. website, they are looking for employees ‘who like a challenge’. Their website also describes what services they offer, to wit:
“Hard Line Disconnects
We physically terminate lines, whether it’s a single subscriber or an entire building. Our secure termination program prevents signal leakage and theft, significantly reducing illegal usage rates.”
________________________________________________________________
“Unreturned Converter Recovery
After attempting to save a subscriber, our uniformed staff uses a friendly approach to retrieve converter boxes. We act fast, before boxes can be lost or stolen. Working seven days a week, our recovery rate is consistently 90%”

Note the ‘uniformed staff’ descriptor. The Court of Appeals finding shown with this article is silent on whether or not Mr. Moorefield was in uniform, but if he was, then clearly he was identifiable. The persons who assaulted him knew who he was and what his mission was. He was obviously in the area for one reason, and one reason only – to retrieve the property of the company whom Boxco was contracted to represent..

While we believe that the Court erred in its finding, we also believe Mr. Moorefield’s next step is to file suit against the cable company that owns the property he was sent to retrieve.

By: Bud'sthename

Bud'sthename — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:47:33 +0000

Well, overwhelming support for the cable guy in the above responses – I assume that no jury of peers was involved or the outcome would have been different. I am shocked that he did not receive compensation, plus I believe that being recognized as the cable guy was the catalyst for the attack- and the robbery was an afterthought! Mr. Moorefield thought that he recognized one of his alleged assailants due to a previous disconnect order. That places the “on the job” aspect into consideration in my mind.
With all of the frivilous suits that go on for spilled hot cups of coffee or no warning labels instructing customers to be careful because hot coffee may burn, and what have you – here is a case that should have awarded the victim! During college, I worked for a telecommunications company doing disconnect work for unpaid delinquent accounts. we were instructed to leave the premisis if customers became agitated or abusive and to leave the equipment in place. I ran into such situations including some that would even unleash their dogs to chase me away! If you have not been in that situation, you don’t know the potential harm that follows you! He should have gotten compensation of everything he requested!

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:28:30 +0000

This employee’s schedule for the day should be evidence of a work assignment that directed him to that location sometime during his shift. If he decided to do the disconnect at a time outside his normal schedule, he was doing so for his own convenience and it could be the reason that he was denied WC. With the description of the assault as presented in this article, there is not enough data to make a determination of whether he should be due compensation.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:28:07 +0000

This ruling is absurb… This guy would not have been at that location if it were not for his Job to disconnect the cable. Workers comp is to proctect workers and help them in the event they become injured during employement. In this case the workers comp system clearly did not protect this worker. I don’t promote violence in any way but after this guy heals up, I wouldn’t be surprised if he unleashed a good beaten of his own on the cable executives who fought to strike down his workers comp claim. This guy was clearly doing his job to collect money for the cable executives. Maybe a few good kicks to their heads will wisen up those cable executives and help them appreciate good employees who risk their lives out in the streets. America and the corporate greed that this country protects is going down hill and fast. Stories like this workers comp denial is just more proof how corporations have no respect for the employees who work hard to bring in the money. Shame on everyone who worked to deny this guy’s claims…..

By: Barb Darling

Barb Darling — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:26:37 +0000

I agree with Alec Finn. He was on the job and quite likely would not have been there if his job had not required it. If it could be determined that he lived there or was personally visiting someone there then there would be grounds to say they mugged him just because he was there. This set of circumstances would also mean he was not actually on the job. This would put the onus of proof on the company rather than the victim.