Court Denies Injured Workers Claim Due To Horseplay

Workers’ compensation is a no-fault system, designed to help workers when they are injured on the job. Employers are required by law to pay into the state workers’ compensation fund to make sure workers are protected.

Unfortunately, both the workers’ compensation insurance companies and the employers they cover want to limit the amount of money paid out to employees. The insurance companies want to avoid payouts because they are a business and are ultimately interested in making as much money as possible.

Employers have a vested interest in limiting workers’ compensation claims because their premiums go up anytime a worker is injured and claim is made. For this reason, employers look for reasons to avoid paying claims. For workers, it is wise for anyone injured on the job to speak with an experienced worker’s compensation claims attorney to protect their rights.

Although many workers enjoy good relationships with their employers, they should not assume their employer will be looking out for their best interest if they injured on the job. One Pennsylvania found this out the hard way after his employer challenged his right to receive workers’ compensation benefits.

A pallet jack driver had a history of driving a forklift around his work, despite the fact that he was not certified and he was not authorized to drive it. One day he crashed into a pole, and crushed his foot that was sticking out the side of the forklift. When he filed for workers’ compensation benefits his employer challenged it, claiming the driver violated a work rule when he injured himself and was therefore not operating in the scope of employment.

In Pennsylvania, anytime an employer challenges a claim based on a worker violating a work rule, the employer must prove three things:

• The injury was a result of the worker breaking a rule at work
• The worker was aware of the rule
• The rule involved an activity that is not associated with the worker’s duties at work

In the case of the pallet jack driver, the employer was able to convince the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court of these three things and the court determined that the pallet jack driver was not entitled to benefits because his injury occurred outside the scope of his employment.

Source: www.riskandinsurance.com, “Driver’s violation of work rule foils claim for serious injury,” 6 September 2012