$ex injury compo claim

[Pesca77]

She is not suing her boss! Maye someone can start a thread about compensation. Do people who are against this claim feel it's wrong to make an insurance claim if they are at fault?

If it happens while at work/work function then I have no issue with claims being paid, regardless of fault, absolutely. That's what workers comp is for IMO. People have accidents all the time, it happens.

I've tried explaining a few times but perhaps not clearly enough....my issue with this claim is that it happened outside of work hours and nothing to do with her work. Yes she was away for work purposes, but it was her decision to meet a friend AFTER her working day had obviously finished (and their negligence that broke the light (allegedly)).

It's not about the $ex to me, I'd say the same if she went out dancing and fell over - just because you wouldn't have been away if it wasn't for work, doesn't mean your company should pay for accidents in your own personal time/choices. You couldn't claim against your employer if this happened at home, so why should being in a hotel be any different, just because they paid for it? To me its irrelevant where she was and for what reason, it happened outside of her work commitments whilst away so she should chase the hotel for compo, not her company. Again just IMO of course.

Companies already compensate you very well if you're required to work away from home (I travel every fortnight so speak from experience). I'd hate to have my own business in this day and age if companies are now required to pay for accidents that happen outside of work.

[lambjam]

This happened at 11pm at night through their own personal actions, not whilst 'on the clock' so to speak. It was her choice to call her friend, go out for dinner, come back and have rough $ex, regardless of where she was. They have admitted the light could have been damaged by them anyway, so that's why I have an issue with this particular claim.

What is apparently not being understood here is this: because she was there for work, she was covered. This is the law.

If you disagree with this, don't blame her! Blame the workers' compensation legislation that she rightly claimed under.

(Further, if you disagree with this you'll need to be ready to clarify exactly where you'd like to see these lines drawn. If she was watching TV in her room and it blew up, leaving her with third degree burns? If she was having a shower and slipped on a cracked tile, fracturing her arm? In the eyes of the law, they're all the same as what actually did happen.)

[share a book]

If it happens while at work/work function then I have no issue with claims being paid, regardless of fault, absolutely. That's what workers comp is for IMO. People have accidents all the time, it happens.

I've tried explaining a few times but perhaps not clearly enough....my issue with this claim is that it happened outside of work hours and nothing to do with her work. Yes she was away for work purposes, but it was her decision to meet a friend AFTER her working day had obviously finished (and their negligence that broke the light (allegedly)).

It's not about the $ex to me, I'd say the same if she went out dancing and fell over - just because you wouldn't have been away if it wasn't for work, doesn't mean your company should pay for accidents in your own personal time/choices. You couldn't claim against your employer if this happened at home, so why should being in a hotel be any different, just because they paid for it? To me its irrelevant where she was and for what reason, it happened outside of her work commitments whilst away so she should chase the hotel for compo, not her company. Again just IMO of course.

Companies already compensate you very well if you're required to work away from home (I travel every fortnight so speak from experience). I'd hate to have my own business in this day and age if companies are now required to pay for accidents that happen outside of work.

It's nothing new. We had a conference back in '01 and one of the girls was hurt. The lift was out, we had to yake the stairs and she slipped. She was covered. It happened after 10pm as that's when the motel bar shut and we went back to the rooms.

[Pesca77]

It's nothing new. We had a conference back in '01 and one of the girls was hurt. The lift was out, we had to yake the stairs and she slipped. She was covered. It happened after 10pm as that's when the motel bar shut and we went back to the rooms.

I don't actually have a problem with this. If you're out for a work function then you should be 100% covered no matter what the time of day, I've always agreed with this. If it happened when she decided to go out for drinks with personal friends away from work or not work related, then it's a different story (for me anyway).

[Benji]

I don't actually have a problem with this. If you're out for a work function then you should be 100% covered no matter what the time of day, I've always agreed with this. If it happened when she decided to go out for drinks with personal friends away from work or not work related, then it's a different story (for me anyway).

I get the feeling she was talking after the conference, on the way back to the room.

Either way, she was away for work. In a motel room that her employer probably booked. Why is an accident on the stairs any different to an accident in bed?

[Annabella]

I guess the fact your work pays for your food and accommodation when you are away on work trips, and the accident happened in said accommodation is why it's covered under workers comp. I'm sure they'll recover costs from the hotel if possible anyway.

[Pesca77]

What is apparently not being understood here is this: because she was there for work, she was covered. This is the law.

If you disagree with this, don't blame her! Blame the workers' compensation legislation that she rightly claimed under.

(Further, if you disagree with this you'll need to be ready to clarify exactly where you'd like to see these lines drawn. If she was watching TV in her room and it blew up, leaving her with third degree burns? If she was having a shower and slipped on a cracked tile, fracturing her arm? In the eyes of the law, they're all the same as what actually did happen.)

I'm not attacking the woman personally, it's definitely the law I don't agree with and that she even has a case.

I see your point regarding the other injuries as examples - but I could also offer a similar counter argument. If your computer blows up in your face at home whilst casually checking work emails by choice (not officially working), your company would not be liable. But yet this woman is entitled to claim for an injury sustained that had nothing whatsoever to do with work, just because she happened to be away on business. That's a contradiction I don't understand or agree with. It was a personal encounter out of work hours that was by her choice, I really struggle to see why a company is liable in this scenario. She's capitalizing on a loophole in the system, regardless of it not happening while working or at work.

I completely get it's the law and she's 100% entitled to claim - no problem, follow the law and good luck. I'm simply stating I don't agree that she actually has that right to claim in the first place in this situation. I don't agree with the particular law. Anyway...we all have different opinions and views which is great, so best to 'agree to disagree'!

[Benji]

It wasn't out of work hours though! It was on work time. I've been through the allowances employees are entitled to whilst away for work because they are compensated for being away from home.

[biscotti]

I'm feeling desperately sorry for her

Her character is being questioned on forums by people who do not know her, or the actual situation or the actual circumstances.... And who think she is capitalising, or cashing in.


Pretty awful really.

[Ana Gram]

I'm feeling desperately sorry for her

Her character is being questioned on forums by people who do not know her, or the actual situation or the actual circumstances.... And who think she is capitalising, or cashing in.


Pretty awful really.

Not just that but it seems anyone who has made a work cover claim while not actively doing their job is also a money grubber.