Worker beaten while on the job: Can he get workers’ comp?
September 19, 2011 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Injuries, Latest News & Views, Special Report, What do you think?, Workers' comp, new court decision, workplace violence
A worker whose job it was to collect overdue cable TV bills, disconnect service and retrieve cable boxes was assaulted while disconnecting service at an apartment complex. Is he eligible for workers’ comp coverage?
On the day of the assault, Frank Moorefield Jr. had seen two men at the apartment complex, and thought he had spoken to one of them four weeks earlier about an unpaid bill. At that time, the man said he didn’t have the money to pay the bill and he returned his cable box to Moorefield.
Moorefield had gone behind a building to disconnect cable service for another apartment. When he returned to the front of the building, one of the two men struck Moorefield with a heavy metal object, possibly a gun or pipe. He fell to the ground, and both men kicked him in the head and then left.
The men had taken his wallet, but they didn’t take the money he had collected that day for the cable company which was in his front pocket.
Moorefield sought temporary total disability benefits, a disfigurement award, payment of medical bills and a lifetime medical award.
A workers’ comp commissioner denied the claim, finding Moorefield’s injuries didn’t arise out of his employment.
Moorefield appealed that ruling to the entire workers’ comp commission, which found he didn’t produce evidence that the suspects were aware of the amount of cash he typically carried or that he had any cash in his possession at the time of the assault.
The commission found Moorefield was “exposed to a risk that any member of the general public could have been exposed to in that particular [location].” It said his job of collecting payments and disconnecting cable service didn’t expose him to a greater risk of assault.
Moorefield took the case to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
The appeals court noted that previously, Virginia courts had found that “to be entitled to an award arising from an assault, a claimant must establish that the assault was directed against him as an employee or because of his employment.”
Since the workers’ comp commission found that not to be the case, the appeals court affirmed the ruling: Moorefield would not receive workers’ comp benefits for his injuries.
What do you think about the court’s ruling? Does carrying a substantial amount of cash for a job put an employee at greater risk of assault? Let us know what you think in the comments. Also see our poll on our homepage.
A side note on workplace assaults: Oddly enough, if you break your wrist while punching a customer in Australia, you can get workers’ comp, as a recent case proved.
(Moorefield vs. Boxco, Inc., Court of Appeals of VA, No. 0559-11-3, 8/30/2011)
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: Boxco, cable boxes, collect cable bills, Workers' comp, workplace assault
Loading ...
September 19th, 2011 at 7:40 am
This doesn’t really surprise me in the cable industry; I’ve heard of workers attempting to disconnect service and guns getting pulled on them. It’s insane that people are so “plugged-in” to television to act like this - it’s absolutely pathetic.
September 19th, 2011 at 9:54 am
That is insane.
Doing his job and got beat up after doing his job. In all likelihood he woul not have been there if it were not for the job.
Should have gotten the award!
September 20th, 2011 at 7:02 am
I was really surprised. I feel, rather strongly, that he was beat up because he was the cable guy. That wasn’t ‘exposed to a risk that any member of the general public could have been exposed to in that particular [location].” If someone was just taking their garbage out back, they wouldn’t have been assaulted.
This shows you a situation where the wrong call was made, and nobody seemed to care about common sense.
September 20th, 2011 at 7:18 am
I usually don’t agree with the rulings we see we see in these reports (or the opinions of most commenters here). Most strike me as being too liberal in their application of the “work-related” standard. But in this case it seems obvious that the employee was present in the area at that point in time only because of his job, so regardless of whether he was assaulted because he was the cable guy or just another target for a couple of criminals, it did arise out of his employment. He should have gotten Comp.
September 20th, 2011 at 7:20 am
I’ve worked for a utility company for 26 years, so I know first-hand that it’s really dangerous out there for those who do disconnects & meter removals. This man was doing his job, he gets beat up while on the job, he gets denied WC benefits-REALLY???!!! Why on this earth does this cable company let the employees in the field collect unpaid bills?? That’s insane and also is just asking for this type of situation to happen. Make the “customer” come into the cable co’s office to pay before service is restored…PROTECT THOSE EMPLOYEES!!! Evidently, the 2 “thugs” didn’t know of the money in his front pocket. But this employee should NOT have been denied WC benefits!! Totally disagree with the court’s ruling!! And what alecfinn said, he probably would not have been there if not for his job.
September 20th, 2011 at 7:37 am
I don’t think he would have gone to that area unless he was told to by his place of employment so he should have won this case as I see it
September 20th, 2011 at 7:38 am
If the cable guy could prove that he would not have been in that location, at that hour, then clearly it was a job related issue and should be covered. On the other hand, if I as an engineer for my company travel to Morocco, and get mugged while out for dinner, would that also be covered? Nope, I was on my personal time, even though I was on assignment in a foriegn country at the convience of my company.
Life ain’t fair, get over it.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:08 am
I feel that he was on the job and was harrased because of the type of job he has. It dosn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that he was there to collect and shut service down, and somebody did not like that……..
September 20th, 2011 at 8:15 am
this is how pathetic workers compensation has gotten. He was doing his job and got assualted for disconnecting a psyco. If he was illegal and broke his leg he would have gotten compensation in the millions!!! I have no faith in the system anymore. A bunch of idiots are running this country!!!!!
September 20th, 2011 at 8:42 am
I cannot believe they did not pay. He was without question at work. He wouldn not have been at that location if he was not working for the cable company.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:15 am
This is actually amazing to me. I read about all of the stupid cases where someone completely undeserving of benefits manages to somehow abuse the system and get coverage and then you see something like this - someone who you can sympathize with and who was truly the victim of a hostile work environment and they can’t get work comp benefits. I once read a story about a guy who received benefits for tipping a vending machine over on himself trying to retrieve his snack but somehow this guy isn’t covered?
September 20th, 2011 at 9:26 am
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.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:28 am
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…..
September 20th, 2011 at 9:28 am
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.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:47 am
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!
September 20th, 2011 at 9:56 am
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.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:09 am
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!
September 20th, 2011 at 10:10 am
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!!!!
September 20th, 2011 at 10:36 am
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.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:39 am
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!!
September 20th, 2011 at 10:43 am
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.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:52 am
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.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:56 am
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!
September 20th, 2011 at 11:32 am
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.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:36 am
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.
September 20th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
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.
September 20th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
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.
September 20th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
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!
September 20th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
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.
September 20th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
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.
September 20th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
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.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
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!
September 20th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
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.
September 21st, 2011 at 9:42 am
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.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:33 pm
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.
September 21st, 2011 at 6:27 pm
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.
September 22nd, 2011 at 9:56 am
The guy was on the clock doing work for the company, he should be paid.
September 22nd, 2011 at 6:07 pm
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.
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:09 am
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.
September 27th, 2011 at 8:28 am
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?
September 27th, 2011 at 9:14 am
clearly he wasn’t represented by a jury of his peers!!!
September 27th, 2011 at 11:39 am
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.
September 28th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Is it possible to send a printed copy of these comments to the lawyers, judges and all involve in the outcome of these claim?
October 10th, 2011 at 10:43 am
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