law questions in the industrial field

Jun 21st, 2015
Price: $70 USD

Question description

True or false questions

·  The main reason most employees falsely claim work-related injuries is because they want the PPD benefits.

True or false

·  hiropractors are considered “medical providers” only when the employee/claimant uses them as their primary medical provider.

True or false

·  The affirmative defense of “contributory negligence” was a complete bar to recovery at common law

True or false

·  Assumption of risk is still a viable defense to injuries that occur on your premises. For example, when an injury is to a vendor at your shop.

True or false

·  The street risk doctrine states that persons injured on the street cannot collect compensation under workers’ compensation because they were injured “coming and going” to work. 

True or false

·  One of the major reasons for the elimination of negligence in the workplace for injured workers is because of the language barrier between employers and employees.

True or false

·  It is important for employers to get a detailed account of what caused an injury on the job. Therefore, having the employee fill out the first report of injury is critical to a good safety investigation.

True or false

·  Gross stupidity on the job, which caused the employees injury, is a legitimate defense to a claim for a work related injury.

True or false

·  Idiopathic falls, like unexplained falls, are based on situations where that facts are totally unknown and thus, are not compensable.

·  All risks causing injury to a claimant can be brought within three categories. These include:

Unforseen risks, personal risks, and neutral risks.

Neutral risks and personal risks, and ideopathic risks

Risks distinctly associated with the employment, personal risks, and neutral risks

Mixed risks, neutral risks and unforseen risks.

·  Common law defenses include:

Assumption of risk

Contributory negligence

he Doctrine of Respondent Superior

A and B only

All of the above.

·  in most states, the definition of “injury” includes psychological injuries only when:

Psychological injuries are never compensable

hey are directly a result of a physical injury

They are severe and documented by a competent medical provider

They are stress-related to a significant incident at work, such as seeing someone get killed at work

·  Most claims for on-premises injuries fall within one of two general categories

Injuries sustained while performing one’s appointed tasks and self inflicted injuries

njuries caused by the negligence of the employee and situations where a fellow employee caused the risk or hazard.

Self inflicted injuries and situations where a fellow employee created a situation that contributed to the injury

Injuries while performing one’s tasks and injuries while engaged in other incident activities not directly involved with performing those appointed tasks.

·  idiopathic falls, like unexplained falls, are based on situations where that facts are totally unknown and thus, are not compensable.

True or false

Multiple choice questions

·  An independent medical examination is useful only when we want to have an unbiased opinion on which of the following elements of an alleged work injury.

Verification of a worker injury.

Medical necessity of treatment.

Modification of worker duties and activities as required by the level of injury sustained.

Extent or degree of permanent as compared to temporary impairment to worker

All the above

·  What is true of the proximate cause test?

It is one of the 5 lines of interpretation of the “arising out of” the employment test of compensability.

The test requires that the harms be foreseeable

 Both A and B

·  If we consider the 3 categories of risk, personal, neutral and occupational, and consider that there are only two places where this risk may fall, i.e., either on the employee or the employer, then why should the employer pay for situations where, for example, the employee is hit and injured by a stray bullet?

The employer should pay because the employer should pay.

he employer should not pay because there was no increased risk to the employee.

The employer should not pay because it is absolutely unfair.

The employer should pay because there are only two places where the risk may fall, and the positional risk doctrine would suggest that this is the correct analysis.

·  Judge Cardoza is best known for ??

His rule on dual purpose trips

His theory on compensability.

This doctrine on social and recreational activities.

All the above


·  if an employee had only been working one week, they should not be able to claim a repetitive trauma injury, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, because that condition requires an injury to occur over time and one week is not enough. The counter argument is;

There is no counter argument because this is correct

That if the person already had carpal tunnel syndrome and lied about it, then they should be fired.

t is irrelevant because they were not injured on the job.

It is irrelevant because if they meet the 2 prong test of compensability, then how long it takes is irrelevant

Neutral risks and personal risks, and ideopathic risks.

Tutor Answer

(Top Tutor) Daniel C.
School: UCLA

Studypool has helped 1,244,100 students

Review from our student for this Answer

Jun 21st, 2015
Ask your homework questions. Receive quality answers!

Type your question here (or upload an image)

1819 tutors are online

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors