Workers Rights or Abuse of OBWC?

Denial of on-job injury pay upheld
Stubborn teen gave up rights, top court rules
Thursday, December 28, 2006 Plain Dealer

Columbus -Bosses told him not to, but the 16-year-old fast-food worker tried to clean a pressure cooker by boiling water in it. And when co-workers warned him not to open the lid, he ignored them, too, releasing a powerful blast of scalding water that severely burned the teen and injured two other workers at the Dayton-area KFC restaurant three years ago.

The case of the teen who wouldn't listen sent a shock wave through the state's workers' compensation system Wednesday when the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the denial of job-injury payments to the teen while he recovered from his injuries.

Trial lawyers and two of the court's justices who dissented said they fear that the decision injects fault into what is supposed to be a blameless system for injured workers and their employers. "Workers' comp has always been a no-fault system," said Gary Plunkett, a Dayton lawyer who represented the teen. "The decision is surprising."

Plunkett said he and the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers intend to ask the court to reconsider.
The Supreme Court's decision said the sole issue before the justices was whether the Ohio Industrial Commission abused its discretion when it decided that David M. Gross voluntarily abandoned his job by repeatedly ignoring safety rules and instructions.

The court's decision called concerns about injecting issues of negligence and fault into workers comp claims "thought-provoking" but said the particular facts of the case weighed against further discussion of the issue.

Five of the court's seven justices agreed the Industrial Commission had not erred. Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton and Paul E. Pfeifer dissented. "If we conclude that this was a voluntary departure that precludes payment . . . I believe that this will place us on a slippery slope toward assessing fault in industrial accidents," Stratton wrote.

....Slippery Slope towards assessing fault? How about expecting people to act responsible and not expect to be rewarded for ignorance or negligence.....

Phil Fulton, a workers' comp lawyer who wrote a brief on behalf of the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers, in an interview said so-called "job abandonment" defenses were meant to protect employers from employees who were fired and then later claimed job-related injuries.
"If the reason you're not working is other than your injury, you're not entitled to workers' comp," Fulton said.

He said the Supreme Court's ruling changes the nature of the workers' compensation system, which was intended to avoid disputes over fault on the part of either the worker or employer. "If you get to argue fault in every case, why not get rid of workers' comp and go back to suing?" Fulton said. "I don't think the business community wants that either."

------------------------------------------

--- I think what the business community and residents of the of Ohio want the OBWC to act responsible like they did in this case. When an employee continually refuses to obey directions and willfully ignores safety precautions, he forfeits his rights for any care or benefits available from OBWC.

Not only did this idiot kid above harm himself, he put other employees and customers in danger and should be charged with a crime.

No-Fault seems like it stacks the deck against employers. No wonder we have tons of money being spent on false workers comp claims with this bleeding heart no-fault system! Thank God for conservative judges.

King