Today's winner is insurance broker insurance broker Ramsey, Krug, Farrell and Lensing. They get the award for the following-
FOX16 News obtained surveillance video of the attack at a McDonald's on Rodney Parham that left an employee with multiple gunshot wounds. The August 2008 video shows a man wearing a white shirt hitting a woman. Seconds later, an employee runs in to break it up and the attacker is forced outside. Off camera, the employee was shot three times. He walks back inside and then collapses before medical attention arrives.What is the saying, no good deed goes unpunished. Haskett may well have saved the customer's life, now he's the one to suffer. He's a hero in my opinionSix days after the attack, LRPD detectives arrested Perry Kennon, 27, charging him with shooting Nigel Haskett. After three surgeries, $300,000 in medical bills and six months recovery, Haskett filed a workers compensation claim for his injuries.
Claims specialist Misty Thompson with insurance broker Ramsey, Krug, Farrell and Lensing responded, denying Haskett's claim.
"We've denied this claim in its entirety, it's our opinion that Mr. Haskett's injuries did not arise out of or within the course of his employment," a portion of the statement reads.
*****
As part of the denial, the insurer included a page that details expectations of employees during orientation. In a robbery situation it tells employees not to do anything that would put themselves or anyone else in danger. Wilson asserts that clause does not apply in this incident.
Ramsey, Krug, Farrell and Lensing is acting as a third party administrator in this claim. Allen McClain with the Workers Compensation Commisssion says McDonald's uses a self-insured trust for workers compensation premiums that multiple franchisees pay into, including the location on Rodney Parham.
The denial will be appealed but in the meantime I name insurance broker Ramsey, Krug, Farrell and Lensing today's Knucklehead of the Day.
Hat tip- Don Surber who calls the people responsible for the denial, 'imbeciles'.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Knucklehead of the Day
Comments (7)
Yes, absolutely, this emplo... (Below threshold)1. Posted by epador | February 25, 2009 9:05 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Yes, absolutely, this employee is entitled.
NOT.
Workman's Comp is not an appropriate source to pay for this. Certainly the shooting victim deserves recompense for his risk to life and limb as well as suffering, but to drain the WC pool is inappropriate. If he was a trained security guard whose job it was to protect customers, it would be another thing. He was not, and his job training clearly stated that his actions were not in the line of his job.
McDonalds should laud him as a hero and pay for everything out of their company profits, but not the WC pool.
Think, don't feel, before you name a knucklehead. You reasoning is about as sound as the emotional blackmail that Obama is using to get folks to accept the mortgage crisis bailout.
1. Posted by epador | February 25, 2009 9:05 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on February 25, 2009 09:05
2. Posted by James H | February 25, 2009 10:06 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I can't call the insurers knuckleheads in this case. If stopping a shooting is outside the scope of the employee's duties, I don't see how the workers compensation insurer can be expected to cover the damages.
2. Posted by James H | February 25, 2009 10:06 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 25, 2009 10:06
3. Posted by Larry | February 25, 2009 10:26 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Implied is the obligation of any employee to attempt to save his employer from lawsuits and public defamation. If he had not rushed to save the victim of the beating, likely McDonalds would have been sued.
I can see the headlines now, "Employees of McDonalds watch as customer is beaten, then rushed to hospital." Parham was acting in the best interest of McDonalds and thus is entitled to workman's compensation, in my opinion.
The incident was NOT a robbery. I suspect that Parham will win in court and McDonalds will loose in the Court of Public Opinion unless the company charges in to save their reputation.
Larry
3. Posted by Larry | February 25, 2009 10:26 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 25, 2009 10:26
4. Posted by John | February 25, 2009 10:48 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
He should sue McDonald's for negligence in not providing a safe working atmosphere.
4. Posted by John | February 25, 2009 10:48 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 25, 2009 10:48
5. Posted by Tom | February 25, 2009 10:56 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Was this a robbery? I can't follow the link, but it sounds like an attack on the woman, not a robbery of McDonalds.
5. Posted by Tom | February 25, 2009 10:56 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 25, 2009 10:56
6. Posted by GarandFan | February 25, 2009 12:10 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This is so stupid on several levels, has MacDonalds even considered the amount of bad publicity they'll get on this? In dollar amounts it will be much more than simply paying for Haskett's treatment.
6. Posted by GarandFan | February 25, 2009 12:10 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 25, 2009 12:10
7. Posted by Littlecrock
| February 25, 2009 4:48 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The Official FB page for Boycotting McDonald's until they pay Nigel Haskett's medical bills. Join us.
7. Posted by Littlecrock
| February 25, 2009 4:48 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 25, 2009 16:48