Daily note.

I still laugh at this note every time I read it. Such a cute gesture from the guy. I still remembered how much it made my day to wake up to this, even though it confused me quite a bit at first.

You were such a sweetheart (maybe not anymore). Still, thanks for all the memories :)

Workers Compensation

by Viet Pdf Nguyen on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 at 7:49am 

Although workers compensation law must provide a balance, it should never

form a loophole for those employers who want to price out risks that are going to 

cause injury. A "true intent" interpretation of the exclusivity exception will give you

such a loophole. This is because when an employer as immunity for culpability up

to pure intent, any risk that was taken for a legitimate business purpose will never

qualify for an exception. However, courts using a relaxed view of intent are going to

prevent such pricing out of workplace injuries. Only a relaxed standard will let you 

bring a tort claim for a substantially certain risk of injury - effectively tearing down

the financial incentive by increasing cost. Thus the proper standard is never going 

to be true intent when the goal is increasing workplace safety. But, it is critical to

remember that workers compensation represents a quid-pro-quo and we can't run

the risk of upsetting the balance. Using an intent standard somewhere around

"substantially certainty" would continue to provide immunity for safe employers and 

only increase the liability exposure for this employers whose actions would desert

the standard of "accident" under tort. Therefore, when defining exclusivity, if you

lose time from work, accidents in which the employee loses time, they carry

on.