b
|
|
|
|
Once upon a time, as an attempt to do the "right thing" and to avoid costly litigation employers recognized that a system could be established by which workers incapacitated by on the job injuries could be fairly compensated for such injury and all parties could avoid legal actions. This appeared to work well as long as the injury was something clear-cut, definable, and measurable such as a lost eye, hand or foot. Things became a bit more complicated when "back injuries" were introduced into the equation. How does one define "injury"? If statistics show that 80% of the population have experienced at least one incapacitating episode of back pain during their lives how can one be sure that picking up a "widget" at work or "slipping in the parking great deal" were really the traumatic and causual events. What's more, how does one know that a spine was perfectly normal prior to the injury (and how does one define "normal"). In fact, if this spine was not normal (i.e. afflicted with Juvenile Discogenic Disease) but asymptomatic prior to the "work-related injury" is this a "injury" covered by the worker's compensation laws? Actually, doesn't this mean that it would be more definitively a work related injury. One has only to look at the legal precedent of the "paper thin skull" to make the point. This legal concept involves injury to a body part which is more fragile and therefore injured to a greater degree by less trauma. So, if a spine is not normal at birth, but is functioning without problems until a work-related injury occurs should not such a case be even more legitimately considered to be a Worker's Compensation situation? Further more, aren't there occupations where the legal concept of the "Gillette Injury" applies? This refers to jobs where there is continuing low level insult and injury directed to the body ultimately producing job-related disability and worker's compensation claims? Occupations such as trucking are characteristically associated with back problems due to constant compressional loading, jouncing around and environmental vibratory insults. In the real world partial liabilities are assessed for joint responsibility (in percentages) for injuries sustained. Not in worker's compensation, where it is "all or none" phenomenon. Worker's Compensation rules and regulations are totally inappropriate for spinal problems. In regard to spine and back problems Worker's compensation is simply a demeaning, demoralizing, and disrespectful system only adding stress and irrational cost by maintaining an adversarial processes whose logic is no better that of the "Mad Hatter's Tea Party" in Lewis Carrol's "Alice in Wonderland." Maybe for some the "slings and arrows" of dealing with a psychotic system may seem worthwhile to those who believe they have struck the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow by collecting their money and not having to work. Unfortunately, it typically doesn't turn out this way for the injured worker. Society tags them as "losers" and their families can only watch their loved ones become truly disabled mentally as well as physically. An injured worker who is striving to prove how really disabled they are for financial gain is a sad sight. The investment of effort would be much more productive in the other direction. Will worker's compensation continue unchanged into the new millennium? We hope not. There are much better answers:  |
|
|
|
