Posted on 09/10/2009 12:44:36 PM PDT by Abathar
INDIANAPOLIS -- An Indiana court has ruled that a pizza shop must pay for a 340-pound employee's weight-loss surgery to ensure the success of another operation for a back injury he suffered at work -- raising concern among businesses bracing for more such claims.
The Indiana Court of Appeals decision, coupled with a recent Oregon court ruling, could make employers think twice before hiring workers with health conditions that might cost their companies thousands of dollars at a shot down the road.
"This kind of situation will happen again ... and employers are undoubtedly worried about that," said Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute in Princeton, N.J., an offshoot of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Boston's The Gourmet Pizza must pay for lap-band surgery for Adam Childers, a cook at the store in Schererville, under last month's Indiana ruling that upheld a 4-3 decision by the state's workers' compensation board.
Childers, who was then 25, weighed 340 pounds in March 2007 when he was accidentally struck in the back by a freezer door. Doctors said he needed surgery to ease his severe pain, but that the operation would do him no good unless he first had surgery to reduce his weight, which rose to 380 pounds after the accident.
(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...
Having a 340lb employee is asking for trouble.
I thought they were going to have to pay because they fed him too much pizza and made him balloon up to 340.
“...could make employers think twice before hiring workers with health conditions that might cost their companies thousands of dollars at a shot down the road.”
#####
Then of course, there will be a LAW that we employers won’t be able to even ASK such relevant questions regarding health in the first place.
“Discriminatory Hiring Practices”
Can’t wait for the first blind airline pilot........
Keep the pizza away from his fat @ss. Your profit margin will probably take off too when he isn’t taking a bite out of it.
DON’T HIRE FATTIES.
Hey, I didn’t say it.
The Court of Appeals did.
Guess I will go through the list and fire all the grossly fat people this week.
How does a 340 lb employee perform his/her job when it requires them to be on their feet, move quickly, etc...?
This isn’t about being forced to pay for weight loss surgery. Its about paying the full costs for an accident in the work place. And that is the right thing to do.
An accident occurred at work, requiring surgery to repair, and a separate surgery to make that surgery work effectively. In this case it’s weight related, but there are a number of other conditions besides weight that can require separate surgeries.
Either way, no surgery would have been required, if there had been no accident.
Once again there is NO personal responsibility.
We are doomed, no common sense left
Unless he is a healthy NFL lineman. :-)
With that much padding, how did the freezer door even come into contact with his back?
Yes it is.
That is about it, or wrestlers. A grossly overweight employee
is a workman’s comp claim waiting to happen.
I not trying to be nasty or sarcastic but if the employee wasn’t so grossly overweight the accident may never had occured. I understand that the company has to pay for the man’s back surgery but you would have to think that they would not hire such an overweight person again. So fat people are now going to find it harder to get employment because of this decision.
Mel
Would the freezer door have missed him if he weren’t so big in the first place??
Was the freezer door hurt?
The freezer door has filed for permanent disability, and the taxpayers will be supporting it for the rest of its life.
“This isn’t about being forced to pay for weight loss surgery. Its about paying the full costs for an accident in the work place. And that is the right thing to do.
An accident occurred at work, requiring surgery to repair, and a separate surgery to make that surgery work effectively. In this case it’s weight related, but there are a number of other conditions besides weight that can require separate surgeries.
Either way, no surgery would have been required, if there had been no accident”
Surely, surely you jest. Taken in that manner almost EVERY medical condition that this man had/has could be covered under the same theory.
From possible diabetes,hypertension, cardiac disease, kidney disease and even hyperhydrosis to knee, hip, ankle or foot arthitis to stress, anxiety, OC disorder and post traumatic stress disorder.
I have had worker’s compensation patients demand new bathrooms, to swimming pools to vacations to “correct” their injury.
That’s one of the reasons I refuse to see worker’s compensation injuries in my office any more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.