If you were not following your employer's safety rules, you can still collect workers' comp', but staying safe is always your best bet.
Workers’ Comp is “No Fault” (even if it is the worker’s fault).
Workers may be reluctant to file a workers’ comp claim is they feel the injury is due to their own fault. Sometimes they feel that the injury was due to their own violation of a safety rule. In some states, this could bar a workers’ comp, recovery—but not in Wisconsin. An injury caused by the employee’s failure to use a safety device or adhere to a safety rule results in a 15% decrease in workers’ comp benefits, to a cap of $15,000, but the worker can still claim benefits. A worker earning $600/week, with a $400/week disability rate would only lose $60/week.
A worker’s failure to use a safety device causing injury will not reduce benefits if the device isn’t adequately maintained or easily accessible, nor will a worker’s rule violation reduce benefits if the safety rule is unreasonable or not reasonably enforced.
Employers and insurers sometimes deny claims that involve a worker’s intoxication or use of non-prescription drugs. This is inappropriate. However, the benefits can be reduced by 15% if the injury is due to intoxication or drug use.
The connection between unsafe workplaces and the increased frequency of work injuries seems like a no brainer. A study released by NCCI Holdings indicated worker’s compensation claims rose by 3% during 2010 (the first rise in frequency in over a dozen years). The study attributed the increased frequency to several factors
Because of these repeat violations,OSHA cited United Contracting and placed the firm on its “Severe Violator Enforcement Program”
including increases in employment since the onset of the recession in 2008, workers possibly being less fearful of losing their jobs for filing claims, and a lack of light duty jobs to which injured workers could return because of the poor economy.
One factor not referenced is the connection between increasingly unsafe work environments and work injuries. Two recent news stories in Wisconsin underscored this connection. OSHA fined a Wisconsin contractor $150,000
for violations while working on two bridges along highways in Wisconsin. The violation is more alarming because the contractors were working under a State contract to repaint the bridges. OSHA charged that the company did not have proper scaffolding at the bridges exposing workers to falls, and in fact one worker was injured in June after falling from a scaffold at one of the bridges. Because of these repeat violations, Continue reading
This is the first post by guest writer Jon Rehm of Rehm, Bennett & Moore in Nebraska, who will be appearing on our site from time to time.
Today I received a call from a union official at a local packing plant asking me if the company could force injured employees to apply ice and heat to their injuries during break.
I answered it depends on whether the company or the employee receives the predominant benefit of the icing. The predominant benefit analysis is the framework for deciding “donning and doffing cases.” In donning and doffing cases, the issue is whether taking off and putting on safety equipment before and after a shift as well as during meal and break times should be paid. Continue reading