Workers' compensation law was created to give workers no-fault benefits after an injury and protect employers from endless lawsuits. In that sense, workers' comp is a contract—workers get medical care after an accident, and businesses get the assurance that they won't be sued. However, there are certain conditions that can allow workers to seek compensation beyond workers' comp.
In general, workers can seek benefits and sue employers when:
- They can prove their injuries resulted from negligence
- They can prove their injuries resulted from a personally-directed deliberate act of harm
- They can prove that their injuries were caused by the failure of another employee's duty
However, proving these things is not always a matter of black-and-white. Take a recent case involving a high school teacher who was assaulted on campus. The teacher was attempting to end a fight between two students when he was seriously injured. As he was entitled to workers' comp benefits, he received disability, occupational therapy, and fully-paid medical bills.
Citing the three conditions listed above, he also sued the school district.
His case alleged that the school district knew there were safety concerns at the school, but that he (as a teacher) was not sufficiently protected from those concerns. Specifically, he cited that the student's assault on him was racially-motivated—activating the "deliberate act of harm" exception. The court ruled that this didn't apply as "race" is too broad a category to qualify as a "personally-directed" act of harm.
The lawsuit also alleged that the district "consciously and deliberately" caused him harm by ignoring his recommendations as a member of the school safety council. However, the court also ruled that this didn't qualify as conscious or deliberate—just ineffective.
Finally, the case alleged that fellow teachers and the superintendent at the school had a duty to help create a safe workplace or aid the teacher in breaking up the fight. However, the court found that breaking up the fight is not part of a teacher's normal administrative duties—and that the duty to create a safe workplace can't be passed from the district to individual employees.
In the end, the teacher's case was thrown out on these grounds. While he was still able to receive his benefits, the court saw no reason to allow a lawsuit to grant further compensation from the school district. Cases like these are why workers' compensation attorneys exists—the standards for workers' comp exceptions are notoriously high. In these cases, it's not the individual's needs that determine if they can sue, it's what they can prove in court.
Even significant injuries can go unanswered without a strong enough case backing the claim.
Workers' compensation law was created to give workers no-fault benefits after an injury and protect employers from endless lawsuits. In that sense, workers' comp is a contract—workers get medical care after an accident, and businesses get the assurance that they won't be sued. However, there are certain conditions that can allow workers to seek compensation beyond workers' comp.
In general, workers can seek benefits and sue employers when:
- They can prove their injuries resulted from negligence
- They can prove their injuries resulted from a personally-directed deliberate act of harm
- They can prove that their injuries were caused by the failure of another employee's duty
However, proving these things is not always a matter of black-and-white. Take a recent case involving a high school teacher who was assaulted on campus. The teacher was attempting to end a fight between two students when he was seriously injured. As he was entitled to workers' comp benefits, he received disability, occupational therapy, and fully-paid medical bills.
Citing the three conditions listed above, he also sued the school district.
His case alleged that the school district knew there were safety concerns at the school, but that he (as a teacher) was not sufficiently protected from those concerns. Specifically, he cited that the student's assault on him was racially-motivated—activating the "deliberate act of harm" exception. The court ruled that this didn't apply as "race" is too broad a category to qualify as a "personally-directed" act of harm.
The lawsuit also alleged that the district "consciously and deliberately" caused him harm by ignoring his recommendations as a member of the school safety council. However, the court also ruled that this didn't qualify as conscious or deliberate—just ineffective.
Finally, the case alleged that fellow teachers and the superintendent at the school had a duty to help create a safe workplace or aid the teacher in breaking up the fight. However, the court found that breaking up the fight is not part of a teacher's normal administrative duties—and that the duty to create a safe workplace can't be passed from the district to individual employees.
In the end, the teacher's case was thrown out on these grounds. While he was still able to receive his benefits, the court saw no reason to allow a lawsuit to grant further compensation from the school district. Cases like these are why workers' compensation attorneys exists—the standards for workers' comp exceptions are notoriously high. In these cases, it's not the individual's needs that determine if they can sue, it's what they can prove in court.
Even significant injuries can go unanswered without a strong enough case backing the claim.