law questions in the industrial field
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
I
· 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.