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

As we’ve mentioned before, the stereotype of the scheming worker is not a myth. Insurance investigators frequently bust idjits and ne’er-do-wells who fake injuries and file false claims–only to be caught in videos performing activities too vigorous for their supposed injuries–curiously, some get caught when they themselves post the damning material online.

Nevertheless, judging from news stories, anyway, it seems the reverse is more often true. That is, it seems some employers just can’t stop themselves from trying to game the system by misreporting employee head-counts, denying or discouraging treatment or delaying the process any number of ways. We’ve covered some such actions here and here.

Well, here’s some more.

After all the horrible news about catastrophes in various mines through the years, wouldn’t you think a mine operator would be one of the last to get charged with safety or workers comp violations?

Obviously, the most recent case to grab headlines is the explosion in West Virginia, reported on April 6 in The New York Times and commented on the same day in an NYT editorial. No telling what sorts of legal actions and lawsuits may arise from such a well publicized tragedy.

Hiding mine employees in ‘trucking company’

But what about the smaller, “less volatile” cases?  For instance, According to an April 5 post at ClaimsJournal.com, Pamela Allen, “listed as the sole officer of Sly Branch Energy, an underground coal-mining operation” in Kentucky “has been indicted on charges stemming from an alleged scheme to avoid paying workers compensation insurance.

“A federal grand jury in Lexington has charged Pamela Allen with five counts of mail fraud.”

The allegations center around a fake trucking company, apparently created on paper in order to show mine employees as trucking company employees instead.

“The indictment charges that by hiding employees this way she was able to pay less than she should have for workers compensation insurance.”

Former Smurfit-Stone managers plead guilty

In California, two brainiac, ex-managers for Smurfit-Stone have pleaded guilty to charges involving a slapdash plot to dodge the workers’ comp system by allegedly, for instance, steering  injured workers to a physician’s assistant instead of using the proper medical channels; attempting to fudge leave time; and denying time off to recuperate.

If  it’s the same large company that uses the Smurfit-Stone name throughout North America and a couple of overseas locations, the problem may trace to the company’s pursuit for an exemplary safety record.

News accounts say the employees were managers at Smurfit-Stone’s Salinas, CA, factory, and the Smurfit-Stone Web site indicates that it does have a facility there.

The Insurance & Financial Advisor Web news site posted April 5 that subsequent to an investigation begun in 2006, “[t]wo former managers of a California-based container company pleaded guilty to conspiring to deny injured employees workers’ compensation benefits.

“David Lawrence Polk, 53,  . . .[and] Douglas Minoru Tateoka, 61, both former managers of the Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. plant in Salinas, Calif., recently entered the pleas, according to the California Department of Insurance.”

Between the IFA’s account and a late-March report in the The Herald of  Monterey County,  the picture that emerges is a twisted take on Dumb and Dumber, but instead of unintentionally intercepting a load of ransom money, the principals were intentionally misrouting injured workers away from bona fide medical treatment–and from the injury-reporting system.

Workers steered to physicians assistant

The local DA’s office was contacted in October 2006 by a pair of Smurfit-Stone employees, says The Herald, complaining that workers were discouraged from filing workers’ compensation claims at the Salinas plant.

“The original complaints . . . [reported] that workers were taken to the company doctor, who actually was a physician’s assistant.”

The IFA report says that Polk and Tateoka even managed to insert themselves into the examination area where they tried “to influence the diagnosis and treatment of injuries.

“Polk and Tateoka allegedly concealed workers’ injuries, tried to prevent leave time from being medically prescribed and denied injured workers time off to recover, officials said.”

Effort to reduce reporting injuries

Furthermore, in an apparent effort to keep from reporting time lost due to injuries, the affected employees were reassigned to answering phones, shown training videos, and in some cases relegated to “even remaining in their vehicles in the parking lot . . . .”

In 2007, officials from the DA’s office and state insurance regulators arrived with a search warrant and found that workers were being handled outside the system–so much so, according to The Herald, that “[o]ne employee was given a prescription written in the manager’s name, with the understanding the medication could be given to other employees at the manager’s discretion without medical consultation.”

Perhaps the  larger issue is whether Polk and Tateoka are competent managers who were pressured by a too-stringent company policy, or were they simply a pair of goofballs who overzealously interpreted a strong-but-good-faith effort by the company?

The prosecutor is on the record for the company’s sharing blame, according to The Herald: “Part of the motivation, said the DA, was an incentive program that paid bonuses to managers and other employees if the number of reported injuries was minimized.”

Certainly, we’ve such issues before, which we mentioned in our “Report Cards” post in September 2009, describing the concerns of Colorado legislators over reports of bonuses for state agency workers who denied workers comp claims.

And there’s little doubt that Smurfit-Stone with this homepage takes pride in its claims to safety. On the Web site’s “About our company” page, this is third paragraph: “When it comes to our people, safety is at the core of our operating culture. We are proud to have been recognized as the industry’s safety leader every year since 2001.”

Then, there’s a separate “Corporate Safety” page, with six paragraphs about goals, meeting objectives and so forth, including this: “We are proud to have led the industry in safety since 2001, and our performance continues to improve year after year. Our 2008 corporate safety goal was met by achieving a recordable case rate (RCR) of 0.94, making 2008 Smurfit-Stone’s safest year yet.”

Below a link to Pandemic Preparedness (with a specific bullet point admonishing workers to “stay at home” rather than coming to work sick) are three paragraphs that emphasize the RCR highlights of different divisions.

Unanswered e-mails

But what role the case that resulted in these guilty pleas played in the company’s emphasis on safety–if any–is unclear. Two separate e-mails requesting clarification from media relations personnel remained unanswered at post time.

According to The Herald and IFA, Polk and Tateoka are set to be sentenced May 20.

The issue of workers compensation in Texas is important to you if you live and work in Texas, and you have been injured on your job or become ill due to the type of work that you do. In fact, you may be having problems and difficulties in getting compensated for that injury or illness at the present time.

It is well to keep in mind what workers compensation is. Workers compensation is a form of business insurance. It provides benefits in the form of medical coverage, income and rehabilitation to employees or their family who suffer injury, illness or death as a result of, or in the course of, their job.

This does not depend on whether the employee was at fault. If you were to lose your life at your place of employment these financial benefits may be given to your survivors or dependents. These benefits are yours or your dependents or survivors as a matter of “right.” Your employer cannot resort to any legal defense. In return for this, neither you and/or your dependents nor survivors can sue your employer for your injuries or death.

Workers compensation laws were established to reduce the need for litigation and to mitigate the requirement that injured workers had to prove that their injuries were the “fault” of their employer. Workers compensation laws have been around since Maryland enacted the first state law in 1902. The first federal law came in 1906. By 1949, all of the states had passed some kind of workers compensation laws.

Originally, these laws were known as “workman’s compensation.” Texas uses the term, “worker’s compensation” or “workman’s comp.”

When it comes to your safety and health at your workplace, although laws differ from state to state, they all must be in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA, at the national level, has the responsibility of making sure that your workplace is healthy and safe.

There is no national agency, however, that requires all employers to provide workers compensation benefits. The laws regarding workers compensation vary from state to state.

Workers compensation in Texas falls under the general heading of the Texas Department of Labor. More specifically, they are under the Division of Workers’ Compensation of the Texas Department of Insurance.

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Act of 2007 states that the Texas Department of Insurance, “is the state agency designated to oversee the workers’ compensation system of this state.” This act goes on to say that, “the division of workers’ compensation is established as a division within the Texas Department of Insurance to administer and operate the workers’ compensation system of this state as provided by this title.” In other words, the division of workers compensation is to administer the compensation system of Texas in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Workers’ Act of 2007.

In regard to these provisions, it is important for you to know and remember that workers’ compensation in Texas is elective. It is not mandatory or compulsory. This means that your employer can choose between providing workers’ compensation coverage or being subject to civil suit in the event of your injury on the job. The exceptions to this are governmental entities and construction contracts for governmental entities. In these cases, workers’ compensation insurance is required.

Workers compensation laws in Texas are based upon the theory that the burden of on-the-job injuries should be shifted from the worker to the employing business, and ultimately to the consuming public, as a cost of doing business. These laws protect and benefit you as an employee by providing simple, speedy, effective, and inexpensive relief, without regard to the fault of the employee, employer or third parties.

Texas employers who decide to provide workers compensation coverage for their employees have some important legal protections. One of the most important protections is immunity from most lawsuits by injured workers. If an employer has workers compensation, a lawsuit may go to court only after The Texas Department of Insurance’s (TDI) administrative dispute process has been exhausted.

In addition, TDI’s recommendations must be presented to the court. The evidence presented is limited to the issues in dispute, and resolved issues cannot be reintroduced. The employer’s insurance company pays attorneys’ fees and other defense costs.

In order to have these legal protections, employers have to provide workers compensation coverage to their employees in one of the following ways:

• Purchase a workers compensation insurance policy from an insurance company licensed by TDI to write this type of coverage in Texas
• Be certified by TDI to self-insure their workers’ compensation claims
• Join a self-insurance group that has received a certificate of approval from TDI
• Be a political subdivision, which may self-insure, buy coverage from insurance companies or enter into inter-local agreements with other political subdivisions providing for self-insurance.

Employers without workers’ compensation can be forced to pay punitive damages if they lose lawsuits arising from workplace accidents. They also lose certain common-law defenses. They are not allowed to defend themselves in court by arguing that:

• The injured worker’s negligence caused the injury
• The negligence of fellow employees caused the injury
• The injured worker knew of the danger and voluntarily accepted it.

There are several benefits that you are entitled to if your employer has workers compensation in Texas, and you are injured on the job. You are entitled to medical benefits with no time or monetary limits. You may also make the initial choice of the doctor that you want to use from a list of physicians prepared by the Workers’ Compensation Commission.

You are also entitled to disability benefits. Your surviving spouse or spouse and children can also be paid disability benefits in the event of your death on the job.

As mentioned at the beginning, you may be trying to get the compensation and benefits that you believe you are entitled to because of an injury at your job. You are having problems and difficulties with your employer.

You may need the services of a legal professional. You need an attorney who knows and specializes in employment law. You need an employment attorney.