قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Denial of compensation for warehouse workers "arbitrary and capricious"

Denial of compensation for warehouse workers "arbitrary and capricious"



A former warehouse technician is entitled to supplementary benefits because she cannot find work that compensates for her resemblance to the job she had when she was injured at work.

In Bell v. SGS Petroleum Service Corp. Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit in Baton Rouge on Thursday, an employee compensation judge confirmed that the employer's continued denial of damages to the injured worker was "arbitrary and lunar . ”

Donna Bell worked for 27 years for SGS Petroleum and its predecessors to fill 50 pound bags of plastic pellets. In August 2015, Bell slipped and fell on packaging pellets during his employment and finally broke both wrists. She received surgery and physiotherapy, but her wrists did not return to condition before the accident and in July 201

6 she was terminated because there were no modified positions available and she could not perform her previous job. SGS did not offer any vocational rehabilitation and although she made several attempts to get employment elsewhere, she has not received any interviews, according to court documents.

Ms. Bell received temporary total disability benefits until November 2016, when a doctor decided that she had achieved maximum medical improvement.

Ms. Bell appealed to the Louisiana Office of Workers' Compensation, and a labor court judge ruled that she was incapable of earning 90% of her salary before the injury and therefore entitled to supplementary salary benefits. The judge also found that her employer's continued denial of benefits was "arbitrary and capricious" and ordered SGS to pay nearly $ 60,000 in compensation to Bell, along with continued weekly benefits of about $ 500, $ 2,000 in penalties and $ 10,000 in attorney fees. and costs. SGS appealed, claiming that Bell had failed to provide evidence that she had physical limitations.

The Board of Appeal upheld the workers' judgment and held that Bell presented ample evidence that she could not perform her job before the injury. and has not been able to secure other employment. The court also upheld the imposition of penalties and attorneys' fees and found that SGS "picked up the physiotherapist's deposit to try to continue denying Bell compensation."

19659011]
Source link