We are going to court on Wednesday,Suing our employer for not having Workers Compensation?

Question

My husband got injured on the job in March. He went to drink some juice and when he did he realized someone had put an industrial strength cleaner in the bottle. He was in ICU for 3 days and had to have a trech put in his throat. He is doing ok now but we have a ton of doctor/hospital bills to pay for. Plus the money that he didn't make while he was out of work. Has anyone ever had to sue there employer for not carrying workers compensations? My lawyer said that the case could go either way but thinks that we have a good chance. I am just really worried because we can't afford the bills. Has anyone ever delt with this or have any idea of what to expect in court?

Answer 1

I'm going to say, if you're suing the employer because he didn't have workers comp, you're going to lose.  

Your suit is really, suing to collect lost wages and medical payments.  If the employer didn't carry workers comp, as long as he coughs up lost wages and medical payments, it's not your issue.

The ISSUE is, is the actual claim, a 'workers comp' claim.  If this isn't a workers comp claim, according to your state laws, your husband is going to have to prove that the employer KNEW there was industrial strength cleaner in the juice bottle, AND, that the bottle wasn't labled as cleaner.

Do you know for sure, there's no policy?  Or is his insurance company denying your claim?  It's a really important distinction which your attorney should have explained.

Answer 2

I have heard of these cases. Not too many, but there was 2 of them. None of them won.  My first advice is not to sue for something if they cannot be held liable. For instance, you are suing them for not having worker's compensation. Did they tell you that they didnt have workers compensation? How long has your husband worked there? Dont tell me that he worked there for 10 years and didnt know. Alot of times workers dont know, but in court, it would definately work against your husband's case. When he started working there, did they give him a package? If so, did it list everything they are providing? Or did his employer verbally tell your husband what they offer and dont offer? It can go either way because you are suing for the wrong things. What if the state DID NOT REQUIRE A COMPANY TO HAVE WORKERS COMPENSATION? This does relate to your state's requirements. Does your state require that a company in the state has to have workers compensation? Well, in my opinion, and my opinion only, I would suggest you sue for something that you can win 100%. I would say, sue that you were hurt on their property. Now, that is something that they are liable for. But, if they had workers compensation, it would have covered that. But, if they didnt have workers compensation, then they would have to pay out of their own pockets. The lawyer says that you have a good chance, but did that's because you got a personal injury lawyer. These cases, always get settled out of court. So, regardless if you are right or wrong, you always win money. But, in my opinion, and my opinion only, you should go for the big win. Go all the way to have a chance for more money.

Answer 3

What province are you in? I used to work at a workers comp in Alberta. based on the laws there, I think your husband would have been covered.  ( i mean, the type of injury, caused by another employees reckless act, would have qualified him to have a claim a[approved.)

But that is irrelevant to the point, which is whether or not he is supposed to have coverage. If he is supposed to have coverage, then the business should have had coverage. That should be very easily answered by the province's board. Where I worked, there were certain industries that were exempt, and if you weren't exempt, you HAD to cover your employees.