On his way to work, an employee parks his car and walks to the facility entrance. He slips, falls, and seriously injures his knee on an icy/snowy sidewalk. The incident didn’t occur on the company’s property. Despite that, the company is still on the hook for workers’ comp. Why?
Imagine this: A worker is injured and returns to light duty work. After a while he says he “can’t stand it anymore” and asks to be laid off. Then he turns around and applies for full workers’ comp benefits. Did he get them?
A newspaper has investigated reports about working conditions at an Amazon.com warehouse that serves one-third of the country. Employee claims point to extreme indoor heat, closed doors when it was hot, work rates that couldn’t be sustained and firing threats when workers couldn’t keep up in the heat.
What happens when a worker quits after an injury and then decides she deserves bigger workers’ comp payments?
Dealing with workers’ comp is frustrating enough. But losing a case over a technicality is even more so.
Did this company fire a worker for seeking medical treatment for a workplace injury, or was this a case of miscommunication? A jury made the call.
A state workers’ compensation law requires employees to give proper notice of a workplace injury to employers to receive benefits. The question in this case: Did a series of communications between employee and employer add up to proper notice?
If an employee requests a reasonably priced piece of equipment to improve ergonomic performance on their job, would your company easily grant it? Here’s one of those stories that should encourage such ergonomic spending.
Confused about whether you’re required to pay workers for the time they spend putting on and taking off their required safety gear? You’re not alone. Yet another federal court has weighed in on the issue.
