Zaloudek Grain and its injured workers

[jpeaceokc]

I was startled to see the news that Zaloudek Grain, which had two of its high-school-age employees severely injured in on-the-job accidents, was only fined $750 for not having workers compensation insurance. The max amount of fine allowed by law is $75 per employee; they have 10 employees.

We often hear claims that the workers' compensation system tilts towards the injured worker, but in this case, it is certainly tilted against the worker and in favor of the employer.

[jpeaceokc]

Here's one of the news articles about the situation -- http://enidnews.com/localnews/x10959...comp-insurance .

[BBatesokc]

Terrible accident and now financial situation for the victims and their families. I'm assuming the victims can sue the company on various levels. Wonder if they will just go of of business?

[FritterGirl]

My husband is friends with the uncle of the kid who is still in the hospital. His injuries are far more serious than what the Enid paper discussed, and for privacy purposes, I won't disclose them. He will likely be in the hospital for several more months and have to live a significantly-altered life. Ironically, he was trying to pull his friend out of danger when he got caught and pulled under himself. His actions likely saved his friend's life.

The lawsuit issue is complicated. Neither boy was of the age (they are 17) to be working in that part of the mill. Even if they were to sue, I'm sure they could never recoup what they will need to cover a lifetime of medical and rehabilitative costs.

I'm hopeful our legislature will look at this and put in place measures to protect workers from these types of incidents.

[Thunder]

FritterGirl, can you be specific on the injuries he have?

[kevinpate]

T, which part of

for privacy purposes, I won't disclose them

did you fail to comprehend?

Please find something less crass to worry about today.

[Double Edge]

Hypothetically, I wonder which gets the most weight during a bankruptcy proceeding, OSHA fines or judgements in favor of injured employees?

[BG918]

FritterGirl, can you be specific on the injuries he have?

The paper said he lost his leg and part of his abdomen. That sounds pretty serious and wouldn't really want any more details than that...

[Midtowner]

I'm hopeful our legislature will look at this and put in place measures to protect workers from these types of incidents.

Actually, they've been doing the exact opposite. Immunizing businesses from liability in situations like this is basically the aim of the tort reform agenda. The owners of this company ought to do hard time. I know there's a criminal statute covering this. Here's hoping the Garfield County D.A. uses that. Also, that might allow the victims to dip into the Victim's Compensation Fund to cover some of their costs.

[Thunder]

The paper said he lost his leg and part of his abdomen. That sounds pretty serious and wouldn't really want any more details than that...

Thank you for being specific. I'd say the boy need at least 1 billion dollars to cover his lifetime medical care.

[Double Edge]

I'm hopeful our legislature will look at this and put in place measures to protect workers from these types of incidents.

In some peoples' minds that falls in the category of business unfriendly job killing government regulation.

[RadicalModerate]

I certainly am not a Safety Nazi and ambulance chasing lawyers make me puke (in the metaphorical sense of the word) . . .

Still . . .
This looks to me like a clear cut case of criminal negligence.

Not that this apparent fact does either (or any) of the direct (and indirect) victims of the crime any good.

But I suppose that I am "biased" because I worked for a few years at a "family" company that had no real regard for the role of "protecting employees" in the Bottom Line part of the equation. And I survived. Barely.

[MikeOKC]

Actually, they've been doing the exact opposite. Immunizing businesses from liability in situations like this is basically the aim of the tort reform agenda. The owners of this company ought to do hard time. I know there's a criminal statute covering this. Here's hoping the Garfield County D.A. uses that. Also, that might allow the victims to dip into the Victim's Compensation Fund to cover some of their costs.

Good thinking, Midtowner. You're so right about "tort reform" which sounds all well and good until you see it up-close; immunization (good choice of words) of business means ridiculously low fines/liability. Oh...but it makes the state "business-friendly."

[Jersey Boss]

Actually, they've been doing the exact opposite. Immunizing businesses from liability in situations like this is basically the aim of the tort reform agenda. The owners of this company ought to do hard time. I know there's a criminal statute covering this. Here's hoping the Garfield County D.A. uses that. Also, that might allow the victims to dip into the Victim's Compensation Fund to cover some of their costs.

After all, business's are people. Just once I would like to see one of them charged with criminal negligence and let a jury decide their fate.

[Midtowner]

After all, business's are people. Just once I would like to see one of them charged with criminal negligence and let a jury decide their fate.

There is actually a criminal statute dealing with not procuring worker's compensation insurance. It's only a misdemeanor, but an example needs to be made here.