“They’re saying (the killing) didn’t arise out of her employment, except that in this case she wouldn’t have been killed if she hadn’t been at work,” said Frazier’s attorney, Moira Stagliano. “This person didn’t know her, just walked into the store and picked her out.”
The killer, Tommy Joe Thompson, 45, of West Sacramento — had previously served a prison sentence for beating his young son in 1994 — walked in and stabbed Talley.
[A] defense psychiatrist, Herb McGrew, testified that Thompson had told him he stabbed Talley because she was black. Thompson is white.
“You know that he got up that morning, and he said, ‘I’m going to kill a black person,’ ” said Deputy District Attorney Dane Neilson, according to a transcript of the hearing. “She was, unfortunately, the first person he saw, correct?”
“Correct,” McGrew replied.
An insurance company lawyer later cited that exchange in a letter to Stagliano defending the denial of benefits to Talley’s son.“The doctors testify that Mr. Thompson’s motivation in stabbing Taneka Talley was purely race motivated,” attorney Kelly Hamilton wrote. “As such, it is our belief that our denial in this matter is proper.”
“Taneka Talley was at work, doing her job, when she was killed,” the lawyer said. “If she had not been in that store, she would not have been available to (the killer), and she would still be alive.
“It’s shocking that Dollar Tree and its insurance carrier are using the alleged racist motivation of a killer as an excuse to get out of paying benefits,” Stagliano said.
Killed on the Job? Tough luck. We’re SRS and Dollar Tree. We’ll save a buck by screwing you out of your money. Talk about a hate crime! Find a Dollar Tree near you and let them know what you think.
I like the issue–its completely definitional.
What is “job related?” It could be defined as anything that takes place at work but then that would be “while at work” insurance.
Insurance—covers what it covers, and not something close to what it covers.
#1 – Bobbo
Have you ever been in a Dollar Tree store? I’d say part of the job description is “dealing with fruitcakes and people on the fringes of society”.
Just pay the damned money, ya cheapskates. The woman’s dead!
The insurance company will eventually lose this one.
I emailed the following to the Dollar Tree company:
“I understand that you are denying one of your workers support in her insurance coverage after being stabbed to death while at work.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/02/MN1514DSB4.DTL&tsp=1
This is a bad precedence to set for small business operations as well as employee relations not to mention customer perceptions.
I will not be shopping at any Dollar Tree until this is corrected.”
I’m out of my field(s) but seems to me that Workers Compensation laws are based on “job related” accidents and illnesses. As such, whether or not a criminal coming into the store and killing a worker is “job related” or not should be very well established. Should be easy to look up–so I will.
Meantime, if the insurance is for anvils falling from Boeing 747’s and you get hit by a box of Charmin from the top shelf==I say “by definition” the insurance policy does not apply.
This all is in the nature of “a hypothetical.” Boring for you esteemed intellects having opinions on every subject regardless of the facts.
Take a minute and email these bastards.I just quit shopping there because of this and you should to.Thanks John for a great blog.
Turns out, not that easy to find.
Workers Comp is based on “on the job” injuries, so the lady should get the Workers Comp death benefit, as I understand from a quick read.
Thats good. WC should be applied as liberally as possible.
In this case, Dollar Tree provides a “free” additional coverage for injuries arising from “job related” injuries as defined in the policy.
Well, as its supposed to be an added benefit, and the lady was killed while doing her job on the premises, seems to me “its close enough.” But thats just me.
And yes, I enjoy buying from Dollar Store, Lots R Us, Bargain Basement, 99C store, and all the others places. Cracks me up to find exactly the same article for 99cents “on sale” at Radio Slack for $2.50. I remind Patty-O of this pricing strategy every time I see him.
Who is the insurer? They need to be bitch slapped then pay double for the extra grief and pain their BS is causing for the family.
# 7 bobbo said, “Turns out, not that easy to find.”
Just study the BP (Board Policy) decisions. Kidding, those probably aren’t online. This will have to go the WCAB. It’ll eventually go against the Ins Company.
Oh==thanks Paddy. I thought this was insurance above and beyond the WC.
Yea==this is work related as far as I am concerned as a matter of public policy regardless of what the policy says. In fact, “the policy” should be controlled completely by statute?
From what I read then, if the death is not controlled by WC, then the family could sue Dollar Tree for lack of security. Tough case to make absent prior similar circumstances.
Since this is WC and a matter of statute, it is irrelevant whether or not Dollar Tree management supports or opposes the claim.
As Zorkor might say (or in fact always says): “Only in America.”
Well if you can’t get to the fcked up insurance company then the next bestest thing is contacting Dollar Tree.
Contact Dollar Tree
# 10 bobbo said, “Oh==thanks Paddy. I thought this was insurance above and beyond the WC.”
There may be other insurance but WC covers. I have gone before many ALJs (Administrative Law Judge) some on WC cases. I handled this area for a large company in CA years ago. While the laws have tightened against worker fraud they are still the same for this type of case. This is clearly a case that should get paid.
Unfortunately, both the Company & Ins Co. are balking.
The insurer is well within its right to try denying the payout. To me, “on the job” doesn’t necessarily mean “covers everything that happens to you while at work.” It very well might exclude such “acts of god.”
Paddy–its a shame. People should not have to fight for services designed and authorized to help them.
On the other side, a neighbor had a heart attack leaving work at lunch time to go for a bite to eat. Initially, the death on the job claim was rejected as an unrelated health condition. Family got a lawyer and WC paid off. A nice bonus for the family—but I thought it was not deserved.
Well, hopefully the family will gain some kind of punitive or delay damages. The Capitalist idea of “keeping the worker down” has some very unpleasant realities about it.
#13–brm==or just the opposite.
# 13 brm said, “It very well might exclude such “acts of god.”
“arising out of and in the course of’ employment,”
That is the operational part of the law in CA WC.
IF the person had know the lady outside of work and came gunning it would probably not be covered.
However, the companies are just trying to pervert the language in the relevant statues. This incident is clearly covered. Appeals Board will eventully spank the company.
It is a hate crime, I hate Dollar Tree and the insurer.
#15 Bobbo:
Yeah, it also could be the opposite. But, if the company is willing to fight it, there must be at least some merit to the case. Perhaps some case law we’re not aware of. Dunno.
“People should not have to fight for services designed and authorized to help them.”
Well, insurance companies shouldn’t just pay out every time something kind of looks like it might be covered. If they did, we’d all be paying through the roof for insurance.
#16–Paddy==thats a fine distinction you lay out there.
Why does the following argument not work: “The boyfriend new she would be at work and thereby gained the opportunity to commit the crime.”
I can make the “arising out of and in the course of’ employment,” apply with that interpretation. How is WC applied liberally and miss any “arguable” case? Part of WC was to avoid the cost of private litigation that is available when WC does not apply.
Seems to me the private enterprise notion of insurance has slopped over into WC which is not an insurance program per se. That being==we promise you in the BIG print, and take away in the small print.
WC is supposed to be a program of coverage for workers to help them on the occasion of illness, injury, and death with the cost of payout spread out over the cost of doing business. It should be liberally applied as the people were “working.”
Lumps of coal where hearts should be–but bad legislation as well forcing these “close” cases into litigation.
#18–brm. Good response. By opposite I’m saying the killing took place at work. If a wind storm blew the roof in on the workers, this act of god would be covered, why not this intential criminal act where the employee was required to be and BTW often required not to carry guns for self protection and what not?
Do the cashiers at Dollar Tree routinely handle questions from folks walking in the front door? If so, and I think the answer is yes, then she was doing her job to make contact with the dickwad.
Besides, the kid will get the money once the management realizes the bad PR they’re getting on these blogs. Hopefully he has someone to teach him how to parlay that cash into a college education and a house some day.
I was in Dollar Tree this weekend for the first time in a couple years…some great stuff if you know what you’re doing. Firewire cables for $1?
#13 – brm
>>To me, “on the job” doesn’t necessarily mean
>“covers everything that happens to you while
>>at work.”
Sure it does. It’s not just anvils falling on your head at Boeing. I knew a guy once who went outside for a smoke, tripped, hurt himself, said his pecker didn’t work so good after that, and got a shitload of money. If it happens to you on the job, it’s time to pay up. Unless the victim was doing something he or she wasn’t supposed to be doing (which this one clearly wasn’t, not that it would make any difference anyway).
#18 – brm
>>But, if the company is willing to fight it,
>>there must be at least some merit to the
>>case.
Yeah. The merit being, if they drag things out long enough, the plaintiff (or her estate) will settle out of court, saving the insurance company money. It’s costing the plaintiff to drag things out; the insurance company lawyers are on salary whether they’re trying to screw the dead woman or somebody else.
# 19 bobbo said, “Why does the following argument not work: “The boyfriend new she would be at work and thereby gained the opportunity to commit the crime.”
Because of this phrase: “arising out of and in the course of’ employment,”
In the case you present, the fact of employment isn’t what caused the injury. The external (to work) factor of her relationship is the controlling factor. Now, if both worked together it might be different.
But in all honesty, the CA WC system is heavily weighted towards the employee. Sometimes too much.
Well Paddy–you just repeated the words of the statute.
Certainly the killing arose “in the course of employment” so the only question is whether or not a liberally applied statute should include boyfriend killings as “arising out of.”
I think Olo’s comment is right on the money. I saw complaints filed against some supermarket that required its female clerks to smile at all customers and ask: “May I help you?” as part of their jobs. Seems the male customers couldn’t stand the attention and thought the chicks were asking for it.
So–if you can’t protect yourself at work by spray, baton, or gun why doesn’t the subsequent attack by stranger or friend “arise from” the workplace? Yea I know, because thats the law. But whats the “analysis” that supports that withdrawal of liberal humanitarian empathetic good will?
If an employer can’t discriminate based on race, how can they factor race into end of employment (regardless of circumstances)? The insurer is taking a major risk trying challenge this.
Hopefully the Grandmother’s lawyer is decent enough to get this settled based on the backlash.
# 24 bobbo said, “Certainly the killing arose “in the course of employment” so the only question is whether or not a liberally applied statute should include boyfriend killings as “arising out of.””
I’m just telling how cases have been decided and how Board Precedence Rulings & case law has been applied. The explanation I gave you is similar to what you’ll see in BPs.
This Isn’t right, this poor woman died a horrendous death, that wouldn’t have happened had she not been at work. A boy lost his mother, what the hell is wrong with our society, no one cares anymore, I don’t understand how anyone can take someones life. I have dealt with Federal workers comp and they are even worse, they deny everyone and after 22 months of fighting I am finally getting surgery, this system is designed for failure, this woman should be paid and I hope anyone who reads this story will boycott Dollar Tree, I will and I shopped there often, not now they have blood on their hands!
Thanks Paddy.
James–you’re playing the race card? No, the law is not based on “backlash” nor even “blacklash.” Now, go back to sleep.
#28 – Why are you posting? It’s clear you can’t even read.
The racist killer played the race card, I’m just questioning the law.. and how it seems pretty clear to be against what the insurance company is trying to pull.
The backlash will come from this story coming out, and a good lawyer will play off of that to get a big settlement.
I’ve got a phone number for you to call: 1-800-ABCDEFG
29- -James Hill gets pwned. Made you break character and actually make a considered statement.
To that end, is a store actually liable for the racial motivations of a criminal trespassing in its store? I don’t think so.
Is a WC Appeals Board swayed by public opinion? I certainly hope not.
Maybe Paddy can confirm but I don’t think there are “settlements” per se in Workers Comp. If you prove coverage, you get the statutory amount. End of story.
Keep up the good work James Hill. Engage. Exercise those brain cells.