McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at Work

[Lostlover]

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

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.





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.

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

You took the bait.

 

[naked gent]

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

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

I think someone who helps others is superior to those who do not and enjoy the safety of their own indifference.

It's not a question of fear, it's judgment.

If your judgment is that I'm not getting involved because I might get hurt that sounds like fear to me.

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

You said don't get involved and always call the police, my point was that those who stop person A from injuring person B (an injury which is likely to occur if all you do is watch and call the police) improve the level of decency in society and thereby make it a better place to live.

 

[HenryReardon]

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

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

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

It has not been established that the restaurant in question was owned and operated by McDonald's corporate - if the restaurant was owned and operated by a franchise holder, McDonald's corporate profits are not relevant.

 

[NickCole]

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

I think someone who helps others is superior to those who do not and enjoy the safety of their own indifference.

Calling for help from people who can deal effectively with the situation is not being indifferent.

If your judgment is that I'm not getting involved because I might get hurt that sounds like fear to me.

I said nothing about "because I might get hurt."

You're making up stuff and then arguing against it.

You said don't get involved and always call the police,

No, I said if you don't have the training and/or authorative presence to intervene effectively, call someone (police or whomever) who does.

Just because you're "nice" doesn't make you competent.

my point was that those who stop person A from injuring person B (an injury which is likely to occur if all you do is watch and call the police) improve the level of decency in society and thereby make it a better place to live.

Not necessarily.

This guy stopped person A from injuring person B (both of whom had chosen to be involved with each other) and then the guy was injured so badly it's costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, he's out of work for many weeks, and now there's a legal battle separate from person A and person B. And there's nothing that indicates person A or person B is better off because he stepped in rather than calling police. The guy's intervention changed the situation but there's no indication he made it better; in fact it could be he made it worse.

 

[opinterph]

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

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.

It is my impression that what generally happens if your private insurance pays for the treatment of your injury/illness and it is later determined that the circumstances of your claim make it eligible for workers comp coverage; the workers comp insurer reimburses your private insurer. If you have voluntarily elected to be exempt from workers comp, as an owner, your private insurer may seek reimbursement from you personally.

 

[naked gent]

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

It is my impression that what generally happens if your private insurance pays for the treatment of your injury/illness and it is later determined that the circumstances of your claim make it eligible for workers comp coverage; the workers comp insurer reimburses your private insurer. If you have voluntarily elected to be exempt from workers comp, as an owner, your private insurer may seek reimbursement from you personally.

I agree and if I have to reimburse my health insurance company then I must not have been covered.

 

[naked gent]

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

I said nothing about "because I might get hurt."

You're making up stuff and then arguing against it.

I prefaced my remark with the word "if" therefore I never attributed it to you and I'm not making stuff up.

 

[fjancsi80]

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

These legal arguments are totally missing the point. McDonalds should pay the health-care bill not because it is its legal duty but because that's what is expected of one of biggest world companies with exorbitant extra profit in a situation when an employer was hit when trying to do the right thing in the workplace. I think those who claim that give help to attacked women is not the right thing totally lost their moral compass. World will be a very cold and cruel place with this way of thinking.

 

[HenryReardon]

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

These legal arguments are totally missing the point. McDonalds should pay the health-care bill not because it is its legal duty but because that's what is expected of one of biggest world companies with exorbitant extra profit in a situation when an employer was hit when trying to do the right thing in the workplace. I think those who claim that give help to attacked women is not the right thing totally lost their moral compass. World will be a very cold and cruel place with this way of thinking.

exorbitant extra profit ???? Whatever that means.

FACT #1 - McDonalds (per their 2007 annual report) operates 31,377 restaurants around the world, only 6,906 of which are owned by McDonald's corporation.

The rest - the overwhelming majority - are operated by individual franchise holders - local companies which may own/operate 1 or more McDonalds outlets.

We do not know if the restaurant in question was a company owned restaurant, but the odds are certainly against that being so.
In 2007 McDonalds corporate had a net income of 2.395 billion on 22.787 billion in total sales. That certainly doesn't sound excessive, and it's a huge drop from 2006 in which year the numbers were 3.544 and 15.402 respectively.

The golden arches, like everyone else, is feeling the pinch - rising costs and overhead, and unable to increase prices appropriately and remain competitive.

 

[opinterph]

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

I agree and if I have to reimburse my health insurance company then I must not have been covered.

Yes. Rather than disproving your point, I reinforced it (without realizing I was doing so.)

And for the purpose of this topic, if the workers comp insurer in Mr. Haskett’s case [Ramsey, Krug, Farrell and Lensing – NOT McDonalds] can uphold their refusal to accept his claim, then his private insurer would be obliged to cover the cost of his treatment.

It has not been established that the restaurant in question was owned and operated by McDonald's corporate - if the restaurant was owned and operated by a franchise holder, McDonald's corporate profits are not relevant.

The restaurant is owned and operated as an independent franchise.

 

[HenryReardon]

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

The restaurant is owned and operated as an independent franchise.

Thank you. Not that actual hard FACT will stop people from whining about corporate profits.

 

[naked gent]

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

And for the purpose of this topic, if the workers comp insurer in Mr. Haskett’s case [Ramsey, Krug, Farrell and Lensing – NOT McDonalds] can uphold their refusal to accept his claim, then his private insurer would be obliged to cover the cost of his treatment.

Yes, provided he has insurance should it be determined that his injury was not job related then his private insurance would kick in.

 

[levenshulme31]

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

(cough) universal healthcare (cough).
What is really discusting here is not the fact that McDonalds' insurers won't pay the $300,000 dollar medical bill incurred by this emplyee defending a woman being attacked by a much larger man, BUT THAT THERE IS A $300,000 MEDICAL BILL IN THE FIRST PLACE.

By comparison, how much will the taxpayer funded legal system spend in pursuing, arresting, trying and incarcerating (probably for a great many years) the perpetrator of the crime? Why is paying that bill from taxation for the benefit of society as a whole seen as worthwhile yet spending tax dollars on a universal healthcare system which treats everyone of their ailments and injuries and spreads the cost across society deemed to be socialist nonsense?

As it stands, the insurers should pay the bill. Whether he should have got involved or not, the guy was shot at work. If he had not been at work he wouldn't have been shot. End of argument. The guy intervened to stop a bully. Fair play to him. If it were me I'd have hidden under the counter. I wonder if the responses on here would have been the same if he had been shot defending someone from a gay-bashing?

 

[opinterph]

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

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.

CORRECTION: McDonalds IS self-insured. (From the article linked by HenryReardon):

Ramsey, Krug, Farrell and Lensing is acting as a third party administrator in this claim. Allen McClain with the Workers Compensation Commisssion says McDonald's uses a self-insured trust for workers compensation premiums that multiple franchisees pay into, including the location on Rodney Parham.

 

[HenryReardon]

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

Who paid the woman who burned her pussy with hot coffee. McDonalds Corp or an Ins company or an indy owner?

Her spurious claim was in effect paid by all the policyholders of that particular insurance company most likely in the form of higher premiums.

 

[HenryReardon]

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

By comparison, how much will the taxpayer funded legal system spend in pursuing, arresting, trying and incarcerating (probably for a great many years) the perpetrator of the crime? Why is paying that bill from taxation for the benefit of society as a whole seen as worthwhile yet spending tax dollars on a universal healthcare system which treats everyone of their ailments and injuries and spreads the cost across society deemed to be socialist nonsense?

As it stands, the insurers should pay the bill. Whether he should have got involved or not, the guy was shot at work. If he had not been at work he wouldn't have been shot. End of argument. The guy intervened to stop a bully. Fair play to him. If it were me I'd have hidden under the counter. I wonder if the responses on here would have been the same if he had been shot defending someone from a gay-bashing?

The situations aren't even remotely analogous or equivalent.

The taxpayer funded system of courts will spend taxpayer money to prosecute and hopefully incarcerate a violent criminal - thereby protecting society as a whole from further violence.

The guy was on the premises of his employer, perhaps even, on the clock. He was not, however, performing his assigned duties.

You may call this nit-picking, but it is precisely this kind of fine point which keeps layers in business.

 

[HenryReardon]

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

Ramsey, Krug, Farrell and Lensing is acting as a third party administrator in this claim. Allen McClain with the Workers Compensation Commisssion says McDonald's uses a self-insured trust for workers compensation premiums that multiple franchisees pay into, including the location on Rodney Parham.


):

All the more reason to manage the claims paid very carefully. Payments into the trust would be a % of payroll. Payments out of the trust have to be carefully managed - if not, the trust goes broke and nobody collects a claim.

To have honored this claim would have been a violation of the fiduciary responsibility of the third party administrator.

 

[opinterph]

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

… McDonalds' profits during this recession are through the ROOF!

Well, they are certainly higher now than at any time in the past few years ...

Consumers in the United States have cut back on eating out at midtier restaurant chains and have switched to lower-priced chains. This shift has generally helped McDonald's … [Link]

In 2007 McDonalds corporate had a net income of 2.395 billion

And in 2008 McDonalds had a net income of $4.313 billion. [WSJ]

$300,000 / $4,313,200,000 = 0.001 ​

 

[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.

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

More bovine excreta.

Next, I suppose, you're going to tell me that satirical posts are not allowed in CE&P anymore.

When you have to splain'em they're just not humorous anymore.

 

[NickCole]

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

Well, they are certainly higher now than at any time in the past few years ...




And in 2008 McDonalds had a net income of $4.313 billion. [WSJ]

$300,000 / $4,313,200,000 = 0.001
​

What's your point?

Rich people or companies are not obligated to pay out sums of cash they believe are unreasonable. What's implied by your emoticoms is indicative of the same problem crippling America right now -- entitlement to grab from a perceived big pot of goodies whether or not it's earned or deserved. Corporations are in business to make profits, not be charity organizations. Make an argument that proves McDonald's should pay this claim if you can, but they're not beholden to pay out a dime just because they're a successful business.