An Austin, Texas newspaper, online at the Statesman.com is covering a workers' compensation denial of coverage case that is now headed to the Texas Supreme Court. Why is this a matter for the highest court in Texas?
Because lawyers have taken the largely-baffling position that a Schering-Plough saleswoman who lost her eye, had her skull crushed and spent three months in a coma, after her car crashed on the way back from a business dinner with doctors (a dinner paid for by Schering-Plough), and on the way to drop her excess drug samples back at her Schering-Plough storage locker (which was -- entirely coincidentally -- adjacent to her apartment). . . was not "on the job" when she crashed.
Okay, if tons and tons of money were at stake, I could countenance some posturing as a method to reduce the ultimate payout. But not here -- not in this case. Why? Only a little more than $27,000 in workers' compensation is at stake. That's all. Do go read it all, but here is a snippet:
. . . .Liana Leordeanu, a traveling saleswoman, was driving from a business appointment to her office in 2003 when she lost control of her car and slammed into a rock embankment alongside Loop 360 in Austin.
Massive head trauma left her in a three-month coma and required 26 extensive surgeries to rebuild her face and repair her skull.
However, when she applied for workers' compensation insurance benefits for the accident, Leordeanu was denied -- even though she was on company business, traveling in a company-provided car toward her company-furnished office. . . .
The day of her accident -- March 21, 2003 -- was typical in Leordeanu's almost $110,000-a-year job as a saleswoman for antibiotics, allergy medication and other drugs sold by Schering-Plough Corp.
She drove from her apartment complex to a storage facility next door, where she kept drug samples in a climate-controlled unit paid for by Schering-Plough (which merged with Merck & Co. last year).Then it was off to 11 doctor offices in Austin and Bastrop, ending at a South Austin restaurant for dinner with a doctor and members of his staff. Schering-Plough picked up the tab. . . .
Just pay the $27,000, already, New Merck. Send the tab to the State of Texas. If they won't pay -- so be it. But do the right thing, here. Avoid that "Hell Express" train-ticket.
Let me put this in perspective. Every time Merck stock rises on the NYSE by just one penny (it closed around $35.04, on Friday night), New Merck effectively pays Ex-CEO Fred Hassan another $78,000.
So, for a penny on the NYSE, Ex-Schering-Plough CEO Hassan garners about TRIPLE what Ms. Leordeanu is seeking, in total, in workers' compensation payments, here.
Sickening.
If you are interested in learning more, here is Ms. Leordeanu's brief on the merits, here is the brief of the State of Texas workers' comp counsel. And here is the insurance company -- American Protecion Insurance Company -- brief (a particularly huge 6.3 Mb PDF file).
2 comments:
I am not a fan of Schering or Merck but this really is an issue with the defendant and the insurance company. Schering cannot dictate to them on how they want the case handled. Actually Schering is best served if the insurance company pays the claim as workmans comp as it eliminates the possibility of being sued on any grounds what so ever. If the case is not recognized as workmans comp the lady has many theories of law that she could use to hold Schering liable for an amount that I am sure would exceed the $27k the insurance company is denying.
Thanks, Anonymous! I appreciate your sentiment, here.
But actually, I have a differing view -- I'll hold off on outlining it more fully, until I read up on a little more Texas law.
Suffice it to say that I think Ms. Leordeanu, the sales rep -- back in 2003, at the time of the crash -- was covered by Schering-Plough's health insurance plans. Thus, all the medical bills resulting from her injuries were likely taken care of, less her deductibles.
Under Texas law, she is likely claiming under workers' comp because she need not show any negligence on the part of any party in order to recover. So long as she wasn't driving drunk when she left the dinner meeting, she ought to be able to recover under Texas law.
[Now, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that (and it would be entirely appropriate if) she had already filed claims against other entities.]
But this suit is about whether American Protecion Insurance Company, Schering-Plough's workers' comp insurer must pay her $27,000, and change.
I argue that New Merck -- as successor/continuing entity, to legacy Schering-Plough -- ought to pay her from its own pockets, then argue with American Protecion Insurance Company, or the State of Texas, directly -- about getting reimbursement via subrogation.
That is the "right thing to do," for this ex-employee.
If you are interested in learning more, here is Ms. Leordeanu's brief on the merits, here is the brief of the State of Texas workers' comp counsel. And here is the insurance company -- American Protecion Insurance Company -- brief (a particularly huge 6.3 Mb PDF file).
More on another day -- Namaste
Post a Comment