Is the Civil Tort Remedy System Better or Worse for Employers than the Regular State WC System?
Re-posted (in part) with permission from Kansas WC defense attorney, Kim Martens (Hite, Fanning & Honeyman, L.L.P., Wichita, Kansas)
As an employer, you probably have been frustrated at one time or another with your State’s workers’ compensation system and what it has put you through. However, have you ever really considered what would/could happen to you as an employer if the workers’ compensation system was NOT the exclusive remedy for the injured worker’s claim, and what you as an employer would be put through if you were subjected to a civil tort suit for that injured employee’s work accident claim?
It’s happening right now, in several States in the "undocumented worker injury claim" context. A number of States are toying with the idea of enacting State laws totally banning undocumented injured workers from receiving benefits through the state workers’ compensation system.
This question will be explored by a panel of experts at in the upcoming American Bar Association’s National Trends And Emerging Issues Affecting Workers’ Compensation Laws Seminar in San Antonio, TX at the Westin Riverwalk Hotel, March 8-10. At 3 p.m on March 8th, the panel of experts will explore the following topic: "A telescopic look at a PARALLEL UNIVERSE for undocumented injured worker claims—is the civil tort claim alternative to workers’ compensation benefits BETTER or WORSE for employers, carriers and injured workers?"
If you as an employer thought a defense legal cost tab of $10,000 to $15,000 to defend an undocumented injured worker claim in your state WC system was high, wait until you hear from our panel of experts what defending that same action in the civil tort claim context would cost you, and what indirect costs you would face, that you would otherwise avoid, if the dispute remained in the WC adjudication process.
If this topic intrigues you, join us at the conference by registering at the following link: