When injuries and layoffs collide: Who pays?
July 19, 2010 by Fred HosierPosted in: Back/lifting injuries, Injuries, Special Report, What do you think?, Workers' comp
PDF 
A worker slipped and fell, and sustained multiple injuries including one to her back. While the worker was still healing, she lost her job in a mass layoff. Does she still get comp payments?
Vivian Toscano suffered injuries to her hip, shoulder, elbow, ankle, knee, and lumbar and cervical spine. During her recovery, she was restricted by her doctor from performing various job functions. She received temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits.
Her employer, Wyeth/Pharma Field Sales, didn’t offer her modified work appropriate to her restrictions.
Then Wyeth laid off about 1,200 employees, including Toscano, while she was still recovering.
Wyeth’s insurance company denied Toscano’s TPD benefits on the basis that her loss of earnings wasn’t related to her workplace injuries, rather it was caused by the layoff. Toscano appealed to get the TPD payments back.
An appeals court sided with the employee. It said Toscano wasn’t able to do her job because of a workplace injury. That fact didn’t change after the mass layoff.
Based on that, the court said she should continue to receive TPD benefits.
Cite: Wyeth/Pharma Field Sales v. Toscano, District Court of Appeal of FL, first district, No. 1D09-5138, 7/7/10.
What do you think of the court’s decision? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: back injury, laid off, temporary partial disability, Workers' comp
Loading ...
July 19th, 2010 at 9:42 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by HySafe Technology, AEM Store. AEM Store said: RT @SafetyNewsAlert: When injuries and layoffs collide: Who pays? http://bit.ly/cKBotW [...]
July 20th, 2010 at 8:23 am
I’d imagine that because she was receiving benefits contributed to her being placed on the layoff list as an attempt to ‘clear the books’. I’m glad that it did not work as she was injured before the layoff. Some employers are ruthless in their attempts to save dollars but like a lot of these stories, we do not always get the full picture sometimes. She may have seen the layoff coming and fell intentionally but if the facts given are the only facts we get to rule from, I’d say she should get the benefits.
July 20th, 2010 at 8:24 am
The court got this one right. She was injured on the job and is owed comp benefits.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Double dipping? Workers’ Comp. & unemployment??
July 20th, 2010 at 11:12 am
What was the HR department thinking?
July 20th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Interesting point Safety Guy. but I don’t think she can do that. Unemployment clearly asks if you are receiving any other compensable wages or benefits.
Anyway, I am glad that the court ruled in her favor and wish her a speedy recovery.
July 20th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Good job court…. you did get it right this time.
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Safety Guy - Did I miss something? Where in the article does it mention she’s collecting unemployment?
Linda - Double dipping is a no-no. In some states, if double-dipping is discovered, the individual could be charged with insurance fraud. Same goes for comp and UI, dbl and UI, comp and money under the table. All bad.
July 22nd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
I believe you have to be physically able to work in order to collect unemployment.
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:14 pm
I agree she should get both. She was injured on the job and deserves compensation. Now she’s unemployed and deserves unemployment benefits. May be double dipping and I’m the first to call foul, but unless she contributed to her slip and fall, neither of the situations she found herself in was her fault. If we are going to have these sorts of programs at all, this is what they’re for.