We first covered the Charla Nash story back in October 2009.

She’s the Connecticut lady who got ripped apart by the 200-pound chimpanzee owned by Sandra Herold, who has been described as both friend and boss. While in recovery after the attack, Nash learned that she may not be able allowed to sue for damages because the boss maintains Nash was working and therefore is covered by workers comp provisions. If that is the case, Nash will lose recourse to possibilities for a larger settlement from a civil suit.

Officer cites emotional stress

In the meantime, the case has taken another twist that may affect state worker’s comp law: the police officer who had to shoot the chimp applied for coverage for treatment of emotional stress, according to a May 6 piece at stamfordadvocate.com. Initially declined, the claim has led to legislative proposals to close what has been called a “loophole” in dealing with dangerous animals. Shelved by missing a deadline, the proposal will likely resurface in the 2011 legislative session.

Lawsuit not stopped yet

Nash appeared on Oprah’s TV show in November, and Oprah removed the hat and veil covering what’s left of Nash’s ravaged face (here’s a clip from ABC, but be warned: as the commentator mentions, many will find it disturbing).

According to an ABC.com May 7 post, Nash was discharged from the Cleveland Clinic earlier this month and transferred to Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where experts were evaluating her for face and hands transplants. William Monaco, Nash’s attorney, told ABC that the $50 million civil suit he filed is proceeding but that “he did not know when the case would go to court,” and it is “possible Nash would testify.

” ‘It remains to be seen if she’ll testify,’ Monaco said. ‘She does not remember much about the attack, but her testimony about her life since then will be key.’ ”

Frank Chiafari is the Stamford police officer who, apparently, was next on the list for the attacking chimp. According the Advocate, “After almost killing Nash, the chimp charged at Chiafari, who shot and fatally wounded the frenzied animal.”

‘Monster with fangs’

According to various reports, subsequent tests revealed the presence of the prescription drug Xanax in the chimp’s system, but it’s unknown whether that contributed to the animal’s violent behavior. Regardless, the chimp was so agitated that Chiafari had to plug him four times at what must have been very close range. During the legislative process, the officer described the encounter as running up against a “monster with fangs and blood all over it . . . .”

Subsequent to his saving Nash and killing the animal, says the Advocate, “Chiafari applied for workers’ compensation . . .  asking the city of Stamford to cover his treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. The city denied his claim at first, but later agreed to cover out-of-pocket . . .” expenses “. . . related to his treatment.”

The loophole: Humans? Check. Animals? No.

Revealed in the process was the loophole the new legislation aimed to sew shut: As the law stands, police officers can “receive workers’ compensation for emotional stress following a dangerous situation involving another human being” but not for similarly threatening encounters with animals.

What’s barely been mentioned is whether the stress derives from encountering “wild-animal” behavior or, instead, from putting down a pet that has gone loco.

Regardless, lawmakers were not able to push the bill through both houses during this session, and the wording has already undergone an oddball change in language.

Originally “introduced to the General Assembly nearly a year after” the event, the bill passed the state Senate 29-4 in April. “But it died in the state House of Representatives when the legislative session deadline passed Wednesday night [May 5] before it could vote on it. State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, introduced the bill and said he will do so again during the next legislative session.”

All animals? No–let’s restrict that to ‘mammals’

McDonald was quoted as saying the bill had enough support in  the House, but the reps’ missing the deadline cut it short. However, there’s apparently some dissension in the lege about how far to stretch the new parameters. For example, the original wording applied to “imminent danger” from animals. But a later version changed the wording from all animals to “mammals.”

Which, of course, rules out dangerous encounters with reptiles and raptors… For example, although rarely encountered, Connecticut does have Timber Rattlers and Northern Copperheads as well as hawks and owls. That’s not to suggest that such animals are inherently dangerous. Still, if cornered, they could certainly damage a human.

Oh, and what the other end of the scale, away from big, scary creatures toward little scary critters, as in bacteria and viruses? That’s something any public safety or health worker might encounter.

Think that’s silly? Maybe. But look where the lawmakers took the discussion.

Skunks and squirrels squeak into the question

The bill’s sponsor, McDonald, alluded to “pockets of opposition” that would have created enough drag on the process to threaten other needed legislation. “McDonald said lawmakers who opposed the law by claiming it would allow for officers to gain workers’ compensation benefits for encounters with mammals such as skunks did not thoroughly read the law.”

” ‘People who talk about the skunk and the squirrel are choosing to disregard language that the officers be in imminent risk of dying,’ McDonald said. ‘It’s not the emotional trauma of having to shoot a dog or anything like that.’ ”

**************************************************************

Have you, a friend or a loved one been injured on the job? Whether you’re merely seeking answers about your rights or believe a lawsuit may be necessary, be sure to seek counsel with attorneys trained and experienced in workers’ compensation. Here’s some resources:

Workers compensation basics

Injury on the job

Choosing an attorney

News of workers comp oddities and “what-were-they-thinking” stories often involves what one blogging attorney calls “sexy,” as in dramatic:

“The high drama of catching a worker on video water skiing when they claim to need a cane to walk. Using night vision photography to catch a worker moving tools out of his truck.
“Every so often the 10 o’clock news will show a worker being led to jail in handcuffs.”

That’s from Julius Young’s “Workers Comp Zone” post back in August 2007.  He goes on to describe problems within the industry itself, which we’ll return to in a later post, but today let’s look at a strange recent event, one in which the injured party is not seeking workers comp benefits.

Instead, a woman who may be determined to have been the injured party’s employer is seeking to have the injury classified as work related.

Typically, in the types of stories that Young calls sexy, we hear tales of workers who exaggerate the extent of their injuries, or get hurt away from work then hide the injuries until they’re back on the job. That’s not the case, here.

According to the AP and USA Today, Sandra Herold operated a tow-truck company in Connecticut called Desire Me Motors. She also owned a 200-pound chimpanzee named Travis that served as a sort of mascot for the company.

In February, Herold was having trouble getting Travis back inside her home, which also houses a company office. Herold asked Charla Nash (described as both a friend and an employees) to help “help lure him back into her house in Stamford.”

The news accounts don’t explain exactly what happened next, but whatever it was Nash was severely injured. USA Today says Nash was “mauled and blinded.” The AP says Travis went “beserk” and that the “animal ripped off Nash’s hands, nose, lips and eyelids,” and that Nash “remains in stable condition at the Cleveland Clinic.”

Subsequently, says the AP, “Nash’s family filed a $50 million lawsuit against Herold, saying she was negligent and reckless for lacking the ability to control ‘a wild animal with violent propensities.’ ”

Here’s where it gets really interesting. Herold’s attorney, says USA Today, “is arguing that the attack should be treated like a worker’s compensation claim, which would severely limit monetary damages.”

The attorney, Robert Golger, according to AP, “says in recent court papers that Nash was working as an employee of Herold’s tow truck company, Desire Me Motors, at the time of the attack. He argues that Travis was an integral part of the business, saying his picture was on the wrecker, he appeared at the garage daily and he attended numerous promotional events.”

Perhaps worse for Nash, not only did Herold’s home have a company office but also “Nash fed Travis, cleaned his play area and purchased his supplies as an employee, Golger contends.”

At stake, of course, is who pays for Nash’s injuries. As USA Today says, “If the court should agree, the owner would be insulated from personal liability in the case,” meaning the $50 million suit against Herold would go away, and Nash would have her injuries administered under workers’ comp provisions. Says the AP: “Under workers’ compensation, Nash would have her medical bills paid for by the employer’s insurance and would receive partial wage replacement, but would not get any money for pain and suffering that makes up a large part of jury awards in civil cases. Workers typically receive 65 to 75 percent of their wages.”

The AP also quotes John Mastropietro, chairman of the Connecticut Workers Compensation Commission, as explaining, “It’s a steady smaller income that would be enormously dwarfed by a successful civil suit.”

“Matt Newman, attorney for Nash’s family, said he disagrees with the argument but declined further comment.”

However, at least one observing attorney is pretty upset. Michael Phelan, writing at InjuryBoard.com (“Are Enemies of 7th Amendment Outraged About This Frivolous Defense?”), sees larger implications.

“Let’s see if the insurance industry-sponsored lobbyists who call themselves tort reformers hold any press conferences or buy any advertisements to criticize the frivolous defense being put forth in the case where the pet chimpanzee ripped the face off of a woman,” writes Phelan in an October 15 post. “I’m not going to hold my breath waiting because this frivolous legal maneuver benefits the defendant chimpanzee owner’s insurance company. Consequently, I don’t expect any outrage from the so-called tort reformers. They only seem to become outraged when trials guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution benefit individual citizens.”

Phelan summarizes thusly: “Here’s the good news. We don’t need tort reform or any other sweeping government intervention into the legal system in order to address this or any other case. The system will likely sort this case out. For the most part, we have excellent trial judges and responsible jurors in this country. I predict that this workers’ compensation plea will not succeed.”