FOX16 News obtained surveillance video of the attack at a McDonald’s on Rodney Parham that left an employee with multiple gunshot wounds. The August 2008 video shows a man wearing a white shirt hitting a woman. Seconds later, an employee runs in to break it up and the attacker is forced outside. Off camera, the employee was shot three times. He walks back inside and then collapses before medical attention arrives.
Six days after the attack, LRPD detectives arrested Perry Kennon, 27, charging him with shooting Nigel Haskett. After three surgeries, $300,000 in medical bills and six months recovery, Haskett filed a workers compensation claim for his injuries. Claims specialist Misty Thompson with insurance company Ramsey, Krug, Farrell and Lensing responded, denying Haskett’s claim. “We’ve denied this claim in its entirety, it’s our opinion that Mr. Haskett’s injuries did not arise out of or within the course of his employment,” a portion of the statement reads.
Philip Wilson is Haskett’s attorney. He says the defense from McDonald’s insurer is baffling.
“Seems like any employer would want a disturbance stopped and that’s what this young man was simply trying to do,” Wilson says. As part of the denial, the insurer included a page that details expectations of employees during orientation. In a robbery situation it tells employees not to do anything that would put themselves or anyone else in danger. Wilson asserts that clause does not apply in this incident.
Yeah, that seems fair.
well it is a race to the bottom with corporations these days… and it looks like the usa will be a winner in this race..
Ah… sweet justice. McDonalds ALMOST had to pay for someone’s expenses to advance civilization. That would have been another giant leap for communism in America. And, now that he’s due 300k for fixing him up, capitalism is reasserting itself…
Its to bad, and can say something about corporate mentality if this was a corporate facility and not a franchise. But the employees job is to take orders and serve food. It is not to play policeman. Option number one should have been to call police. If you reverse this and something would have happened to the crook say he slipped and broke his neck. There would have been a potential lawsuit against mc d’s and the employee. Helping some one while noble in todays litigious society you need to be aware.
Still saying Michael was wrong ??
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/dvd/trailer.html
#3 DITTO
Still, considering the publicity/marketing budget of this company, it probrably would have been more cost-effective to take care of him. Fast food’s a fickle business and there’s always lots of competition. People love a hero, regardless of how ill advised their actions may be.
#3 is right. He didn’t break up the fight as an employee. That wasn’t his job. Nor is getting shot a work a considered risk when getting a job at McDonalds.
I feel bad for the guy… but the decision is right. This is not a workman’s comp case. He could sue the gunman for harm, but that would be a waste of money and time.
We need universal access to health care because sometimes shit happens, even to the best of us.
#3 #8 Are you guys some sort of anti-business pro-union guys? I mean this is the kind of “it’s not my job” mentality that is killing business in this country. I am certain that if in fact you look at the corporate guidelines it was not unreasonable for this person to HELP THE FRIGGIN’ CUSTOMER rather than calmly calling the cops and waiting forever like a good little boy. Are you guys high to be defending this decision? Or just heartless pricks? If the latter, then OK. Just say so and not rationalize it.
I don’t see why the tax payers can’t flip the bill. Isn’t that the whole idea behind universial healthcare? Where’s the state? Why haven’t they come to his rescue? Isn’t the arguement against allowing people to carry firearms that the police are there to prevent crime? Where were the police? Shouldn’t they be responsible for his medical bills because they failed to protect the citizen?
#9, JCD,
I agree. But I would have been a little more gentle in the way I said it.
This guy was just lucky he wasn’t fired for bleeding on his employee uniform. That’s clearly destruction of company property, which is grounds for termination, and the resulting black mark on his record could prevent him from ever being accepted for advanced studies at Hamburger College.
Would you like fries with your injustice?
#10, Eric,
While you ask several question, I have one for you. Could you not of thought through any of them first?
I don’t see why the tax payers can’t flip the bill. Isn’t that the whole idea behind universial healthcare?
Because it is not the “taxpayers responsibility”. If there was universal health care then the answer would have been ‘yes’.
Where’s the state?
What ‘state’? If you mean the ‘State”, then it is capitalized. And I would suspect it is still where they always was on the map.
Why haven’t they come to his rescue?
They did. The police showed up. The emergency rescue took him to the hospital. The police arrested the perpetrator.
Isn’t the arguement against allowing people to carry firearms that the police are there to prevent crime?
Wrong discussion. The police are under no obligation be be there for you personally to prevent any specific crime.
Where were the police? Shouldn’t they be responsible for his medical bills because they failed to protect the citizen?
Nope.
The Ins should pay. Now, it would be nice if they had work camps for the purps. They should have to work until they’ve paid for the injuries to their victims is covered, all as part of the jail sentence. No release until they pay it off…
clancys_daddy said,
“…But the employees job is to take orders and serve food. It is not to play policeman. Option number one should have been to call police.”
If I saw a woman under assault and in need of assistance I would have acted to help her. Waiting for the police to arrive is a bad idea. She could be bleeding on the floor by that time.
#16 LOL
If an insurance company pays on such a non-claim, that is, on an event that is outside the terms and conditions of its policies and thus outside of the actuarial tables that it used in setting its rates, then that would be nothing more than the expropriation of funds from the company’s owners. In short, it would be theft.
If the owners of the insurance company decided to pay out of their own personal funds, as a charitable act, then that would be within their rights. It is not, however, within the rights of the officers and employees of the insurance company to give away the owners’ money.
The same can be said about McDonalds, whether it’s a corporate store or a franchise. What the employee did was not a part of his job, not only theoretically but explicitly, since it was outlined in the employee handbook. And if the owners of McDonalds (or a franchise) want to pay out their own money, then fine, but its not for McDonalds’s (or a franchise’s) officers or employees to do so. Again, were they to do so, it would be expropriation, or theft.
If any of you want to help this guy out, then send him some of your own money. Start a charity. Put up a Web site and ask for donations. But don’t sit back and sanctimoniously demand that insurance company and restaurant employees commit theft against their employers by giving away their money.
# 18 Mark said, “If an insurance company pays on such a non-claim, that is, on an event that is outside the terms and conditions of its policies and thus outside of the actuarial tables”
Umm, this is mostly set by statute, not company policy.
#19 – Paddy-O: Insurance _policy_. Not sure what you’re saying here.
# 20 Mark said, “Paddy-O: Insurance _policy_. Not sure what you’re saying here.”
What is covered under W/C policies (AOE, COE) is stipulated under State W/C statues, for the most part. Not, by ins companies. That i why it can be appealed to state agencies. When a company doesn’t pay they usually quibble over definitions, not coverage policies of the Ins company.
Paddy-O is correct. He will be able to appeal this deisicion to the Arkansas Workers’ Comp Commission and then into the courts. Because the work comp law is what sets the terms of the policy.
Worker’s Compensation, sometimes referred to as “Workman’s Compensation” or “Worker’s Comp”, is the name given to a system of laws meant to protect injured workers. The goal is to make sure that somebody who is injured at work receives appropriate medical care, lost wages relating to the on-the-job injury, and, if necessary, retraining and rehabilitation, so as to be able to return to the workforce.
[…]
Ordinarily an employee who qualifies for Worker’s Compensation benefits may not file a personal injury suit against the employer.
Notice it is a system of laws — government mandated insurance that companies must pay premiums for.
I know dozens of people who have filed claims against WC and every single one of them have been denied. Most are still rejected the second time the claim is made. And a couple on the third time.
One example is my father-in-law. He had a heavy chain hoist fall on his head. He had severe headaches that night and decided to go to the doctor. He was denied because he was able to walk into the doctor’s office. He went to get a second opinion and they put him in the hospital right then and performed surgery to fuse together some vertebrae. It took four times going before the state board before they finally approved the surgery.
It may sound cynical, but I think it is standard policy for WC to reject everything the first time around. WC should pay this claim but I am not surprised they aren’t.
#9 Well John I am neither high nor am I pro union. The article states that the argument occurred in the the parking lot as the result of a domestic dispute. Nothing in the article states the either was a customer. People walk through parking lots all the time without being a customer. The company that I work for would deny my claim in a similar situation, as it has before for other employees. Because I am not a cop and stepping in is not one of my job duties. If I do so than I am responsible for MY actions good bad or otherwise. And before its said I am neither republican nor democrat I’m a registered independent.
Yep, WC is a statutory scheme meant to protect BOTH employer and employee from injuries “arising out of” the employment relationship.
If you have cancer and it progresses to where you collapse AT work==no coverage.
If you are AT work and your boyfriend drops by to beat you up==no coverage.
If you are AT work and you leave the workplace to play cop==no coverage. Now, I do think if the disruption had occurred on premises and/or to a customer and the employee “violated” company rules, coverage would still apply.
Philosophically, we could have rules that applied AT WORK but it can be a fine line what with aggravating circumstances and what not to draw that line between collapsing from cancer and the violent boyfriend.
At least it “makes sense” from a stated policy objective. The real complaint here should be that most likely the employee did not have a work provided insurance program to cover the bills. And of course, that leads to the lack/expense of not having Universal Healthcare. Again, all for good policy reasons?
#25 said, “The real complaint here should be that most likely the employee did not have a work provided insurance program to cover the bills. And of course, that leads to the lack/expense of not having Universal Healthcare. Again, all for good policy reasons?”
Umm, no. It is a W/C situation. You wouldn’t want to use med ins for this. One would have to know something about ins to understand that point though.
Well Paddy, the point is that it is NOT a WC situation==thats what the insurance/WC provider has said. If that changes, then it changes.
Maybe I should have added “the employee should have had work place paid for private health insurance plan.”
The whole point of filing a CLAIM is to see whether or not it is a WC situation, and until the man decides it is, it ain’t.
You are less than cute when being obnoxious and wrong at the same time. Please pick one or the other.
Bobbo,
Paddy-O is correct on this one. The incident is covered by WC, or should be.
A business owes a duty to all patrons and the public for their safety. If there is a situation where the public, another employee, or even property is about to be or could be injured or damaged, and an employee takes steps to protect the public, person, or property and is injured in the process, they are covered.
Yes, almost every cashier manual will tell you to give the money to a robber and not get hurt. This was not a robbery though. This was an assault and someone’s life was in danger on restaurant property. He was mitigating a crime that McDonald’s could have ultimately been held liable for.
What would happen if the robber shot the cashier even though s/he gave them the money anyway? As Paddy-O said, it is a matter of statute of his being covered for a work related injury.
Um, The company that made the call as most posters have noted is the insurance company. He may be able to draw disabiltiy from S.S.
I think the workers comp people hope you will die or just give up before they have to pay you.
I don’t have a clue what a jury would make of this.
Many years ago I drove a city bus in urban Cleveland. A male rider was harassing a female rider. It wasn’t to the level of punching or slapping. If I had gun like many drivers carried I might have broken it up. I saw what was happening in the mirror and knew that the lady would get off soon. It still troubles me that I didn’t do something. I hale Nigel for his stepping in but I am very sad that about what happened to him. I tend to think that if this happened in a different time and at a different company he would have gotten his worker’s comp..
Ronald MacDonald must DIE!
BTW,John calling your readers pricks, I love it.Keep it up.
Isn’t there a store that is being sued because the store workers were told that there was a baby locked in a hot car with the windows up in their parking lot and they pretty much said that it was not their problem? I think we as a society are getting tired of the “it’s not my job” mentality. McD’s should be happy that they actually have an employee with some initiative and is willing to get off his ass.