Man in motorized cart shoots Walmart employee in dispute over dog, police say

Reba, I remembered the fact that would have affected me. In Alaska when you file a Workman's Comp claim you give up the right to claim liability against the employer.
I was working for a pipeline company at the time. The safety man tried to force me to file a comp claim for an asbestos exposure he endorsed. He was able to bamboozle all the other employees into filing - I did as well but was suspicious and found out how to use the release clause and filed the hand written signed reversal of my filing in the time limit to get out of it.
Every now and then I still get a letter from the insurance adjuster they use for comp claims trying to sucker me back into the issue.
 
Last edited:
Reba said:
You're right. The employer pays for the insurance coverage of employees of companies that are large enough to be required.


That's what the insurance pays for, yes. The store doesn't make payments to the employe, the workman's comp insurance does.

That doesn't mean the employe will get a lot of money.

When my son-in-law was receiving workman's comp for his work injury, he got about 1/3 of his usual weekly paycheck amount until he could go back to work (months later). Workman's comp did pay all his medical expenses and for adaptive equipment, such as a ramp for the door, extra supports for stair rail, hand control for his car, wheelchair, walkers, shower seat, etc. He has life-long coverage for prosthetic leg and accessories replacements.
Click to expand...
Worker's comp pays 3/4 of the regular pay to an employee who is married or has child(ren). Otherwise, it pays 5/8 of the regular pay to an employee who is single. The federal/state taxes are not deductible. What's more, those incomes are not taxable.

BTW, one deaf guy from my work still receives worker's comp for more than 10 years because his work-related injury disables him. He receives SSDI, too, however it's hugely reduced due to his worker's comp.

I read that OWCP will continue to pay anyone who gets a job-related injury/illness until he/she's able to return to work or dies. I heard that it would pay up to 2 years which is not true. However, it's very strict as it requires the employee to see a doctor whenever he/she's asked to. Otherwise, OWCP will stop paying him/her.

Another story is that my sister-in-law stopped receiving OWCP because she refused to go back work to do light duty that her ex-employer offered. She lost the court case. In other words, OWCP will make sure that your employer has light duty positions for you if available.
 
Just because it happened on the job doesn’t mean he's automatically entitled to benefits. It has to be a work related injury.

I would say it was though as he was doing his job when he asked the man to leave. Now if the man had just walked in and shot him without any interaction then it would not be work related.
 
One thing you can be sure of here in Alaska is that Mr. Mahi the Walmart employee who was gutshot on the job was visited by a very caring employee from management to get him to sign onto workmans compensation thus losing his right to sue Walmart.
He should be hiring an attorney while in the hospital. There are attorneys who specialize in comp cases and receive their pay from the comp system while working for you but at least you are represented by someone that knows the system and can make sure you are properly cared for.
In the US there is a big to do about medical privacy except that we do not have genuine access and ownership of our own medical records. Doctors write psychological profiles of us that follow us every where we transfer records accept to ourselves.
In Alaska when you sign onto workmans comp you are also giving the insurance adjustors that handle the comp claims for your employer the right to request 2 years of your previous medical records without any right to privacy. This is serious stuff. You are already at a disadvantage because you do not own your complete records- now you have by signing compensation claim forms given the entire insurance industry access to your records.
 
jonnyghost said:
Just because it happened on the job doesn’t mean he's automatically entitled to benefits. It has to be a work related injury.

I would say it was though as he was doing his job when he asked the man to leave. Now if the man had just walked in and shot him without any interaction then it would not be work related.
Click to expand...
There are conflicting news reports. One says Mr. Mahi asked the shooter to leave another says another employee asked the shooter to leave as Mr. Mahi was walking by.
 
goodonya said:
Reba, I remembered the fact that would have affected me. In Alaska when you file a Workman's Comp claim you give up the right to claim liability against the employer.
I was working for a pipeline company at the time. The safety man tried to force me to file a comp claim for an asbestos exposure he endorsed. He was able to bamboozle all the other employees into filing - I did as well but was suspicious and found out how to use the release clause and filed the hand written signed reversal of my filing in the time limit to get out of it.
Every now and then I still get a letter from the insurance adjuster they use for comp claims trying to sucker me back into the issue.
Click to expand...
I see.
 
goodonya said:
There are conflicting news reports. One says Mr. Mahi asked the shooter to leave another says another employee asked the shooter to leave as Mr. Mahi was walking by.
Click to expand...

If that was the case then he may not be entitled to workmans comp.

The only way he could win a case against Walmart though would be if they where negligent somehow that lead to his being shot.
 
CrazyPaul said:
Worker's comp pays 3/4 of the regular pay to an employee who is married or has child(ren). Otherwise, it pays 5/8 of the regular pay to an employee who is single. The federal/state taxes are not deductible. What's more, those incomes are not taxable.
Click to expand...
My son-in-law is married with two children. There is a cap on the amount they get, regardless of the percentage. So, he got a lot less than the actual percentage would have been without the statewide cap.

BTW, one deaf guy from my work still receives worker's comp for more than 10 years because his work-related injury disables him. He receives SSDI, too, however it's hugely reduced due to his worker's comp.

I read that OWCP will continue to pay anyone who gets a job-related injury/illness until he/she's able to return to work or dies. I heard that it would pay up to 2 years which is not true. However, it's very strict as it requires the employee to see a doctor whenever he/she's asked to. Otherwise, OWCP will stop paying him/her.
Click to expand...
There is a time limit for amputees. Presumably the stump grows back by then so there is no disability.

Another story is that my sister-in-law stopped receiving OWCP because she refused to go back work to do light duty that her ex-employer offered. She lost the court case. In other words, OWCP will make sure that your employer has light duty positions for you if available.
Click to expand...
My son-in-law's employer did find another position for him at the plant, so it worked out for him.
 
jonnyghost said:
If that was the case then he may not be entitled to workmans comp.

The only way he could win a case against Walmart though would be if they where negligent somehow that lead to his being shot.
Click to expand...
He might need to prove negligence in order to win a civil suit against Walmart (which seems doubtful unless there are other facts that we haven't been given). He should be eligible for workman's comp even if it the injury wasn't the direct result of his job performance.

My brother fell at work when another employe bumped into him. My brother broke his elbow. Even though he was just walking thru the store at the time, as was the other employe, he got workman's comp because it happened at the work site during working hours.
 
Reba said:
He might need to prove negligence in order to win a civil suit against Walmart (which seems doubtful unless there are other facts that we haven't been given). He should be eligible for workman's comp even if it the injury wasn't the direct result of his job performance.

My brother fell at work when another employe bumped into him. My brother broke his elbow. Even though he was just walking thru the store at the time, as was the other employe, he got workman's comp because it happened at the work site during working hours.
Click to expand...

The key there is that it was another employe that bumped him. The company is somewhat responsible for what the other employe did at work. If a total stranger walked in and bumped him then it could have been different.
 
Now if he was trying to protect patrons when he was shot then that could be in his favor. There have been ruling that if injuries are sustained during good samaritan acts that they are entitled to compensation. Especially if it makes good press for the business.
 
jonnyghost said:
The key there is that it was another employe that bumped him. The company is somewhat responsible for what the other employe did at work. If a total stranger walked in and bumped him then it could have been different.
Click to expand...
No, the "key" was that it happened at work, during working hours. It wouldn't matter if it had been a customer that bumped into him, or he had just tripped over his own feet. The accident happened at the place of work during the time of work.

Unless the laws of your state are more picky. My brother lives in CT.
 
It's called "neutral risk" So if you're working at the office one night and stray bullets from a drive by hit you then it's going to be difficult to get benefits unless you can prove that work conditions increased the risk of being shot.

First you have risk associated with employment. This risk is covered. Then you have personal risk (such as smoking cigarettes on the job and getting lung cancer) that is not covered. Then you have neutral risk such as getting shot at Walmart.

Jurisdictions differ so I'm not claiming to know for sure.
 
jonnyghost said:
It's called "neutral risk" So if you're working at the office one night and stray bullets from a drive by hit you then it's going to be difficult to get benefits unless you can prove that work conditions increased the risk of being shot.

First you have risk associated with employment. This risk is covered. Then you have personal risk (such as smoking cigarettes on the job and getting lung cancer) that is not covered. Then you have neutral risk such as getting shot at Walmart.

Jurisdictions differ so I'm not claiming to know for sure.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on where you live. The places that I know about pay workman's comp if the injury happened at the work place during working hours regardless of the source. In other words, if the injured employe hadn't been at the work place during the time that the injury happened, then he wouldn't have needed workman's comp. If he had stayed home from work during that time, he wouldn't have been injured.

Our state's workman's comp doesn't require proving any fault. My son-in-law got full benefits without anyone being blamed for the accident. (Yes, it was fully investigated by OSHA.)
 
Reba said:
I guess it depends on where you live. The places that I know about pay workman's comp if the injury happened at the work place during working hours regardless of the source. In other words, if the injured employe hadn't been at the work place during the time that the injury happened, then he wouldn't have needed workman's comp. If he had stayed home from work during that time, he wouldn't have been injured.

Our state's workman's comp doesn't require proving any fault. My son-in-law got full benefits without anyone being blamed for the accident. (Yes, it was fully investigated by OSHA.)
Click to expand...
Why do you keep saying that? "Workman's comp". Is there no "workwoman's comp" in your state?

Such schemes were originally known as "workman's compensation," but today, most jurisdictions have adopted the term "workers' compensation" as a gender-neutral alternative.
Click to expand...

You are obviously still old-fashioned.
 
Reba said:
He might need to prove negligence in order to win a civil suit against Walmart (which seems doubtful unless there are other facts that we haven't been given). He should be eligible for workman's comp even if it the injury wasn't the direct result of his job performance.

My brother fell at work when another employe bumped into him. My brother broke his elbow. Even though he was just walking thru the store at the time, as was the other employe, he got workman's comp because it happened at the work site during working hours.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that too about needing to prove negligence . I was in an auto accident while doing an errand for a client . I was a health aide and we had to use our own car to do errants for our clients and I was on the job when a teenage driver T boned my car. I was able to collect workman's comp because I was on my job. If the accident happen before I started my day I don't think I could had gotten workman's comp.
 
jonnyghost said:
Everyone where I am from calls it workman's comp too.
Click to expand...
No way! Where Reba comes from ... Homeof SC GOV

It doesn't mention workman's comp at all. Where are you from? I can easily google it to see if your state still calls it workman's comp.
 
Back
Top