Custom Workers Compensation essay paper writing service

← Therese Raquin by Emile ZolaThe California Sutter Health Approach →

Buy Workers Compensation essay paper online

The workers compensation statutory law works as a form of insurance, such that if any employee is involved in a work related accident, as specified by the agreement between the employer and the employee, then the company is obligated to compensate him/her for any injuries or future losses suffered (Moore, 2009). However, the down side of this statutory agreement is that the workers relinquish their rights to sue for any acts or omissions of negligence that the employer gets involved in. This trade off is commonly known as the compensation bargain. (Harlan, 2011).

Statutory provisions (defense)

The A.R.S §23-906(A)shows clearly, that, employees that show compliance to the provisions of sections 23-961 or 23-962 of the Act, as to receiving compensation in case of any incident or accident from any act or omission, resulting to injuries or death of an employee by the employers negligence shall not be able to sue for damages at common law or through any other way provided for by the statutes. (Harlan, 2011). However if the act constitutes willful negligence then this will be a defense against the employer. Likewise A.R.S. §23-1022(A) shows that the only remedies the employee or his/her beneficiary would get from the employer following injuries and death would only be compensation as stated in the act. These two provisions base the defense of the employer thus preventing the injured party from outsourcing any remedy from common law or otherwise, these are the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. However there are two exceptions to this very stringent laws provided by the exclusionary clauses (1) A.R.S. §23-1022(C) . This section provides the remedy in regards to medical expenses and malpractice by the medical practitioners and all other costs that constitute medical treatment, thus the employee can sue the employer under this section. (Harlan, 2011).

In the case of Ford v. Revlon, 153 Ariz. 38, 734 P. 2d 580 (1987),. (Harlan, 2011). shows  an example as to how the courts have circumvented  the obligatory relinquishment of the rights of the employee not to sue their employer and thus get a chance to institute a claim against the negligence of his employer. In this case the failure of Revlon to take appropriate action in response to the employee’s calls for help enhanced the argument that the supervisor was liable to emotional responsibility .Revlon set up the defense involving the exclusionary clauses which lies under the Arizona workers compensation. This provisions of law were circumvented by the learned judges, that under the A.R.S. §23-1021(B), that workers' compensation covered injuries brought about by accidents arising out of and in the course of employment. The court by a majority determined that this act was not an accident, thus not covered by the Arizona workers compensation act (Peter, 1998). However there were dissenting opinions. 

It is the work of the employer to do a background check of all employees he admits to his work place. The actions of employer in this case, are negligent, thus the court should find in favor of the plaintiff if at all physically injuries were incurred. However allowing a claim of emotional distress, would open flood gates of emotional distresses cases, involving even on lookers and allowing them to sue for compensation on the same claim of emotional distress. The holding in this case, I would say, is very well thought, the fact that the plaintiff suffered emotional distress is actionable if it is argued to be an accident sustained through the course of his work, but it would be unwise for any judge to open flood gates of litigation. If an alarm system was put, this would not prevent emotional distress would it? The plaintiff again is entitled to damages involving the treatment he sought and the side effect that came with it, as there is a statutory requirement enhancing the claim. Willful misconduct  which is a defense to the exclusionary clauses is not evident in this case as was brought forth in the case of  Lowery v. Universal Match Corporation, 6 Ariz. App. 98, 430 P. 2d 444 (1967).

Buy Workers Compensation essay paper online

Related essays

  1. The California Sutter Health Approach
  2. A Health Care Facility
  3. Therese Raquin by Emile Zola
  4. Criminological Theory
order now
Live chat!
Planets Live support online chat Live support phone
Our Advantages
300 Words per page
Bottom line
12 pt Times New Roman Double-spaced typed page
Bottom line
MBA and PhD Writers
Bottom line
Relevant and up-to-date
Bottom line
US Writers
Bottom line
100% Quality Guarantee
Bottom line
24/7 Support
Bottom line
24/7 Live Chat
Bottom line
Flexible Discount Program
Bottom line
ANY Difficulty Level!

Before I give an absolutely rave review of the writer who did such a fantastic job on my book review, I would like to thank you for the courtesy and respect I was afforded by your customer service department. I had some very specific special instructions that I had to convey to my writer, and your customer service agents helped me tremendously. The writer completed my book review early, and I received a perfect score. I am so happy with the work that he or she did! Thank you, You are the very best.

Nancy G., New York, New York, USA

Your work is impressive, the customer care and live support astounding and your prices are unbelievably affordable.

Derrick O., Ontario, Canada

Thank you goes out to writer # 2229. She did an admirable job on my paper, especially since she was given such short notice to put it all together. What resulted was an essay that I am truly proud of. Not only did I receive an excellent grade. I also received accolades from one of the toughest professors in the university. Thank you over and again for an outstanding job. I truly do appreciate it.

Sandra P., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA

-15% first order  Order now