Only one issue I have with the company

wow, I really couldnt follow that.......anyone wanna break it down for the simple folks??

 

Nope, just validates the system is messed up.
Malpractice, workmans comp, I'd.guess 90% are b.s.
Problem with society, people expect something for nothing.
Everybody in prison is innocent.
Nobody is at fault in a wreck.

 

Since I know the cheerleaders will continue to cheer. Without reason, they're always right but too lazy to look for themselves

 

Basically, some nit wit truckdriver, coughs, crashes truck, then files workmans comp claim from crash. In turn some nit wit judge rules in favor of truck driver, saying the cough had no basis on the crash.
POV from cheerleader
Not sure why any company would have to pay out on this sort of claim.
I guess that's why that other fella put it in with the other 9 goofy claims.
Read just the hilited portions from link, almost laughable.
If it didn't cost taxpayers $, and of course the companies that have to pay.out on this garbage.
Just like most deals that were set up to protect workers or citizens, its abused.

 

No Cheering here,as he like countless others tht cant control what they did/or do and cause accidents cost us all in the long run,,,but lets look at some of the article,,,

"David Taylor (“Claimant”), who is sixty-seven years old, worked a total of over thirteen years in the employ of Contract Freighters, Inc. (“CFI”), as an over-the-road truck driver. On November 4, 2006, while working for CFI driving an 18-wheeler, Claimant claimed he felt a dip down as his truck veered to the right and started off the road. As he attempted to correct the truck and veer back to the left, the truck ran off the road; Claimant received injuries from the accident. CFI denied coverage for the injuries on the basis that the accident involved an “idiopathic condition,”(See Below) which was not covered by Chapter 287; CFI claims that Claimant coughed(Now how would Have CFI known that?maybe crash scene testimony OR a history of it just prior to the accident and that his coughing was an idiopathic condition pursuant to section 287.020.3.1 The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) agreed and denied Claimant benefits.

Do a google search for "idiopathic,and add cough
and whats the first thing that pops up?,,COPD and also this page and summary
http://www.riskandinsurance.com/story.jsp?storyId=475318537
Case name: Taylor v. Contract Freighters, Inc., et al., No. SD29945 (Mo. Ct. App. 04/08/10).

Ruling: The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a truck driver's claim for benefits. The claimant's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment and were not caused by an idiopathic coughing condition.

Related Coverage
Longtime smoker can't prove claim to permanent disability benefits (05/05/11)
Employee may seek comp benefits for neck injury during company outing (06/14/10)
Lack of Paid Sick Days Allowed H1N1 to Spread, Group Says (04/26/10)
Fatal comfort break on side of the road is covered by comp (02/27/12)
Store employee awarded benefits for wipeout in mall parking lot (02/06/12)
What it means: Under Missouri law, an injury arises out of and in the course of employment if the accident is the prevailing factor in causing the injury, and the injury does not result from a hazard or risk unrelated to the employment. An injury that results directly or indirectly from idiopathic causes -- those that are "peculiar to the individual" -- is not compensable.
Summary: A truck driver was injured when his truck ran off the road. The employer denied coverage for the driver's injuries, claiming that the accident was caused by an idiopathic condition because the driver coughed just before the accident. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denied benefits. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the accident arose out of and in the course of the driver's employment and was not attributable to an idiopathic coughing condition.

The court explained that to accept the commission's finding the employer had to present evidence that the cough "was uniquely personal" to the driver. It pointed out that although the driver admitted he had a coughing episode just before the accident occurred, there was no evidence that this particular cough was caused by a chronic coughing condition or was otherwise unique to the claimant.

The court further stated that "the problem with the Commission's analysis is that at any time an employee coughs or sneezes, something so common that it cannot be said to be peculiar to any employee, the burden would be on the employee to prove what caused the cough or sneeze."

Because the employer didn't present any evidence that the claimant's idiopathic coughing condition caused the particular cough on the day of the accident, the commission's decision was erroneous.

Now none of us were their and Im sure his lawyers told him never to really to tell anyone the whole story,but look at the FACTS,,Coughing episode,+ a 67 year old driver,who then ran off of the road,,I dont know him and I hope he is okay,but in my opinion he got off on a technicality ,hope it worked out for him,,in the long run he just dug a hole for the rest of us

 

Agreed that people with asthma can hold a medical card but she has now demonstrated clinical diagnosis of a respiratory dysfunction likely to interfere with his ability to control and drive a commercial motor vehicle safely.

She has done this by admitting it was HER "clinically Diagnosed respritory dysfunction" (Asthma) has caused HER in the past to lose HER "ability to control and drive a commercial motor vehicle safely." She proved that and legally validated it when she gave the responding officer that as the reason/cause of the accident.

I talked to a friend who is in insurance underwriting for Owner Ops and small carriers (5 or less trucks) and he advised me that in any instance of an accident not to say you had any medical cause that might have been a factor (coughing, sneezing, shortness of breath, blurred vision, tunnel vision, etc) because if insurance underwriters (guys that actually approve the insurance of a company) see it show up in an accident report (they check details now due to CSA) they see it as possible COPD, diabetes, apnea, chronic migraines, blood pressure issues, heart issues and the sort. They took a beating the last 10 years between 9/11, katrina, economy, etc and are all finding every reason to not insure or allow companies to hire drivers.

He doesn't think it's right and sees alot of good guys with experience getting denied or a jacked up rate for frivolous reasons.