McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at Work

[snapcat]

This is about as smarmy as it gets.

An employee at a Little Rock McDonald's broke up a fight between a man punching a woman in the face in the lobby. The employee is shot, and now McDonald's declines the Workman's Comp claim.




For me, this epitomizes everything that is wrong with the corporate climate in this country. Over and over we hear the same sad argument that our Nation's poor should shoulder more of a tax burden so that the corporate fat cats can relax for a week or two on some corporate retreat.

If this is an example of what corporate America is becoming, then I say that corporate America has become decidedly unamerican.

The bastards that denied this claim should be jailed, and the business should pay a price for gumming up the legal system.

 

[opinterph]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

…McDonald's declines the Workman's Comp claim.

Unless McDonalds is “self-insured,” the denial almost certainly involves a decision made exclusively by the insurance company to which McDonalds pays its worker’s comp premiums.

It is also reasonable to presume that the injured worker did not have medical insurance at the time of the injury. Otherwise, that policy would have covered the cost of his treatment.

 

[HenryReardon]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

This is about as smarmy as it gets.



An employee at a Little Rock McDonald's broke up a fight between a man punching a woman in the face in the lobby. The employee is shot, and now McDonald's declines the Workman's Comp claim.

The bastards that denied this claim should be jailed, and the business should pay a price for gumming up the legal system.

The only thing smarmy about this posting is the smarmy assumption that corporate America is inherently evil.

You have conveniently left out part of the story.

The employee was not injuried while performing his duties as a McDonald's employee. Which is why the Insurance Company has denied the claim.

The employee saw a fight and rushed in like John Wayne to do something about it. The sensible thing to have done would have been to call the police. In fact that is what his employee manual instructs him to do.

On the other hand, if the McDonalds outlet was company owned, McDonald's corporate has missed a golden opportunity to make a positive statement.

If the outlet was a local franchisee operated store, they wouldn't be able to afford such noble gestures.

It is important to note that the employee's boss has contributed to a fund set up for him.

http://www.fox16.com/news/local/sto...tim-wants-workers/k_fXwac27EGO8yvkhUPQog.cspx

Haskett's boss Ray Nosler called him a hero for his actions last August and contributed to a fund setup for his employee. He provided a statement to FOX16 News.

"We are all grateful to Nigel and that's why it is so unfortunate that he's having a difficult time with the insurance claim," Nosler says. "Because the insurance claim is still pending, I’m not able to say more about it, but I hope his claim will come to a quick resolution and the right thing will be done for my employee."

Wilson says the right thing is for McDonald’s insurer to pay the claim.

"Surely we want our young people to step in and break up a fight if something like that were to happen, especially on your own employers premises, I would," Wilson says.

As part of the denial, the insurer included a page that details expectations of employees during orientation. In a robbery situation it tells employees not to do anything that would put themselves or anyone else in danger. Wilson asserts that clause does not apply in this incident.

 

[naked gent]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

It is also reasonable to presume that the injured worker did not have medical insurance at the time of the injury. Otherwise, that policy would have covered the cost of his treatment.

I think that may depend on the state the you're in. In many states your health insurance does not cover you while you're working or, for that matter, while you're driving. (which is why medical insurance is part of your car insurance)

As for the case unless the insurance company can prove the employee knew it was a dangerous situation (which from the video it does not appear to be when he got involved) I think they will, and should, pay.

If McDonald owners want their employees to keep order in the establishment then they will have to deal with the consequences. If they want the police called the next time someone cuts in line then don't pay it....but that sounds like bad business to me.

 

[snapcat]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

The only thing smarmy about this posting is the smarmy assumption that corporate America is inherently evil.

You have conveniently left out part of the story.

The employee was not injuried while performing his duties as a McDonald's employee. Which is why the Insurance Company has denied the claim.

Henry, that's bullshit, and you know it. It's just another cop out excuse from the corporate fat cats who fatten their wallet by denying legitimate claims.

Following your logic, McDonald's should also be held liable for not ensuring safety for all of it's employees by having a security guard in the lobby.

Your lack of compassion for this brave man - whom a judge called a hero - sheds new light on why your ideology is bankrupt in today's America.

 

[smelter]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

Had the employee failed to intervene, he could have been arrested for 'callous indifference'. The final two Seinfeld episodes dealt with this, resulting in a jury trial and jail terms for Jerry, George, Elaine and Cramer.

Shame on the Worker's Comp Insurance Company! If Kuli were there, the 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' would have been reenacted.

 

[snapcat]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

The insurance companies are just out of control!

 

[HenryReardon]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

Henry, that's bullshit, and you know it. It's just another cop out excuse from the corporate fat cats who fatten their wallet by denying legitimate claims.

Following your logic, McDonald's should also be held liable for not ensuring safety for all of it's employees by having a security guard in the lobby.

Your lack of compassion for this brave man - whom a judge called a hero - sheds new light on why your ideology is bankrupt in today's America.

1. Bullshit.
2. Bullshit.
3. Bullshit.

Have you ever owned or run a business?
Have you ever had to actually be responsible for meeting a payroll?
Been there, done that (all of the above), and it isn't easy.

My compassion or alleged lack thereof for this brave fool has nothing to do with the facts at hand.

I have a close relative who's worked for McDonalds (not corporate) for 24 or 25 years. Who currently supervises 2, sometimes 3 when they're short handed, stores for a franchise holder who owns six stores.

These people (who own the stores) in no way resemble corporate fat cats. They are hard-working men and women who have worked all their lives to arrive at a point at which they can own and operate a McD franchise.

It is small businesses like that that are the source of virtually all economic growth in this country.

You are tying, not successfully, to apply a typical left-liberal talking point to a real-life situation. It won't wash.

 

[opinterph]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

… In many states your health insurance does not cover you while you're working or, for that matter, while you're driving. (which is why medical insurance is part of your car insurance)

I can’t find any evidence to support such a restriction on health insurance, via Google. Can you provide an example?

 

[HenryReardon]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

Had the employee failed to intervene, he could have been arrested for 'callous indifference'. The final two Seinfeld episodes dealt with this, resulting in a jury trial and jail terms for Jerry, George, Elaine and Cramer.

Shame on the Worker's Comp Insurance Company! If Kuli were there, the 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' would have been reenacted.

Oh, yeah, Seinfeld is so "real-world" in its presentation.

More bovine excreta.

 

[NickCole]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

This is complicated.

It's not an employee straightening out someone who's cut in line.

In a situation like this, anybody wanting to help should call the police -- and what happened explains why. Time and again we're seeing how Americans are not exercising good judgment. What the employee did was heroic but it wasn't smart. Then comes the question, if I decide to be heroic, who's responsible for the results of my decision?

Still, it's another example of the mess we've got ourselves into with health care and insurance, etc. I don't see this as a corporate failure; it's a failure of the systems we have in place -- and ultimately that's the fault of the citizenry and what we demand (or fail to demand) of our representatives.

 

[HenryReardon]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

; it's a failure of the systems we have in place -- and ultimately that's the fault of the citizenry and what we demand (or fail to demand) of our representatives.

So you think we should have government systems in place to protect people from the consequences of their own carelessness/stupidity?

From the article it appears that the guy got medical care. The argument seems to be over who is going to pay for it.

 

[Glafna]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

Henry, that's bullshit, and you know it. It's just another cop out excuse from the corporate fat cats who fatten their wallet by denying legitimate claims.

Following your logic, McDonald's should also be held liable for not ensuring safety for all of it's employees by having a security guard in the lobby.

Your lack of compassion for this brave man - whom a judge called a hero - sheds new light on why your ideology is bankrupt in today's America.

This is a rare moment when me and Henry agree on something, but he is right. The man was not injured while performing his job, but was injured while intervening on behalf of a woman in trouble. The police should have been notified immediately, and the man should have been approached in a manner that would not intimidate nor provoke him to use or even draw his weapon.

Yes, Hasket done a brave thing, but it was also him trying to be a hero where one wasn't necessarily needed

 

[naked gent]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

I can’t find any evidence to support such a restriction on health insurance, via Google. Can you provide an example?

Well the example I had in mind was me. I own my own business and I choose not to cover myself under my workmen's comp policy and have been told by the comp company that my health insurance will not cover on the job accidents.

Now maybe they said that just to get me to buy the coverage but it does seem odd that you have health insurance coverage and a separate policy while you're working.

Either you have redundant insurance or they are mutually exclusive.

And I've never heard of someone who is injured on the job having a choice as to whether they want go thru the comp company or their own healthcare company.

This is complicated.

It's not an employee straightening out someone who's cut in line.

Its not but thats what it will become. If you're instructed not to interfere and call the police then why would you stop someone from cutting in line?

Are you saying there is no chance that you could get hurt doing so?

In a situation like this, anybody wanting to help should call the police -- and what happened explains why. Time and again we're seeing how Americans are not exercising good judgment.

Maybe it is bad judgment Nick but if you see a woman lying on the ground and a man standing over her and kicking her and you call the police then wait for them while he continues to kick her then put me down as being in favor of bad judgment.

Sometimes you can't let fear determine your actions and while you are taking a risk its the kind of risk which can make the world a better place so its the kind worth taking.

 

[NickCole]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

So you think we should have government systems in place to protect people from the consequences of their own carelessness/stupidity?

From the article it appears that the guy got medical care. The argument seems to be over who is going to pay for it.

We now have the means to heal a wide range of previously fatal diseases and injuries, and yet it's often so costly it causes major financial problems for citizens. If our society agrees it's wrong to let people die just because they can't afford necessary procedures, that's a problem our representatives --our government-- should address comprehensively.

As you say, the argument is over who's going to pay for it. To many of us, universal health care seems the answer. Do you have a better one?

 

[bankside]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

HenryReardon,

You do not do capitalism a service by defending every example of it as a matter of reflex, especially when the example is as terrible as this one.

You really don't listen to yourself, but the rest of us have to, and it is enough to drive people to become card-carrying mccarthy-dodging socialists.

Repeat after me: "Capitalism may be necessary, but not sufficient, for a worthwhile society."

In this case, McDonalds falls well below the mark. If, as I hope, there is a secure future for capitalism, it will not be brought about by slavishly defending bad corporate behaviour as you are willing to do.

Good grief.

McDonald's, pay Mr. Haskett's medical bills, make sure he gets a medal of bravery, and feature him in your advertising as the first recipient of the McDonald's Heroes Award.

 

[naked gent]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

HenryReardon,

You do not do capitalism a service by defending every example of it as a matter of reflex, especially when the example is as terrible as this one.



Repeat after me: "Capitalism may be necessary, but not sufficient, for a worthwhile society."

In this case, McDonalds falls well below the mark. If, as I hope, there is a secure future for capitalism, it will not be brought about by slavishly defending bad corporate behaviour as you are willing to do.


McDonald's, pay Mr. Haskett's medical bills, make sure he gets a medal of bravery, and feature him in your advertising as the first recipient of the McDonald's Heroes Award.

I think its good capitalist business for McDonalds to pay that guys medical bills.

Do they really want their customers to think they are no safer while in their stores waiting for a burger than they might be walking alone on a dark city street?

They are keeping many of their stores open later and later at night shouldn't they want people to feel safe while going there at 1 in the morning?

Pay the bill and get a new insurance company.

 

[opinterph]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

So you think we should have government systems in place to protect people from the consequences of their own carelessness/stupidity?

Isn't that a large part of the basis for obtaining insurance? In terms of government systems, OSHA mandates that employers have a duty to protect their workers from injury and illness on the job (e.g. workplace safety). Establishing how much duty and a reasonable limitation of liability are perhaps issues that are pertinent to this case.

Section 1904.5 Determination of work-relatedness
Injuries and illnesses also occur at work that do not have a clear connection to a specific work activity, condition, or substance that is peculiar to the employment environment. For example, an employee may trip for no apparent reason while walking across a level factory floor; be sexually assaulted by a co-worker; or be injured accidentally as a result of an act of violence perpetrated by one co-worker against a third party. In these and similar cases, the employee's job-related tasks or exposures did not create or contribute to the risk that such an injury would occur. Instead, a causal connection is established by the fact that the injury would not have occurred but for the conditions and obligations of employment that placed the employee in the position in which he or she was injured or made ill.

The man was not injured while performing his job, but was injured while intervening on behalf of a woman in trouble.

Though your statement is true, there is a question as to whether his injury involves workplace safety. Best I can determine, this incident represents a reportable injury under OSHA requirements and is therefore [arguably] related to workplace safety.

Section 1904.5 Determination of work-relatedness

(a) Basic requirement.
You must consider an injury or illness to be work-related if an event or exposure in the work environment either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness. Work-relatedness is presumed for injuries and illnesses resulting from events or exposures occurring in the work environment, unless an exception in Section 1904.5(b)(2) specifically applies.


Question 5-2. Are cases of workplace violence considered work-related under the new Recordkeeping rule?

The Recordkeeping rule contains no general exception, for purposes of determining work-relationship, for cases involving acts of violence in the work environment. However, some cases involving violent acts might be included within one of the exceptions listed in section 1904.5(b)(2). For example, if an employee arrives at work early to use a company conference room for a civic club meeting and is injured by some violent act, the case would not be work-related under the exception in section 1904.5(b)(2)(v).

http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/handbook/index.html​

 

[NickCole]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

Its not but thats what it will become. If you're instructed not to interfere and call the police then why would you stop someone from cutting in line?

Are you saying there is no chance that you could get hurt doing so?

Again, judgment.

Employees ought to strive to maintain order but should not get into aggressive interactions they're not trained for and don't have the tools to deal with if it escalates.

Maybe it is bad judgment Nick but if you see a woman lying on the ground and a man standing over her and kicking her and you call the police then wait for them while he continues to kick her then put me down as being in favor of bad judgment.

I'm sure you think that makes you a good person.

Sometimes you can't let fear determine your actions and while you are taking a risk its the kind of risk which can make the world a better place so its the kind worth taking.

It's not a question of fear, it's judgment. The employee did not have the training and the authority to intervene in a constructive way.

Apparently this was a domestic argument, that woman chose to be with and have a child with that man who hit her in the face. Getting in the middle of those situations is generally a bad idea unless you possess the kind of authoritative presence that can diffuse the heat.

The employee was badly wounded, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses and now there'll be many more thousands in legal expenses, the man who shot him is in deeper trouble than he'd have been if it'd been domestic assault broken up by a police officer.

How did that employee's action make the world a better place?

 

[Lostlover]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

To top it off, McDonalds' profits during this recession are through the ROOF!

They're just being cheap.

I'm going to do something very un-American and go without junk food from McDonalds.