Could I be sacked over putting in a injury at work claim

Jackblack18

I started my job last September I had an accident in November and I been of ever since with pain. I having only worked for them just under or over 2 months getting 40+ hrs aweek. So it f they decide to sack me over putting a claim in what could I do

ted1

How did the injury happen? Where you from following company procedure ? Do you have a probationary period ?

Jackblack18

ted1 wrote: »

How did the injury happen? Where you from following company procedure ? Do you have a probationary period ?

A slip injury in a big puddle. Yes I was following company procedures. And I don't know if I have a probationary period.

2Mad2BeMad

Wouldn't be smart to claim off a company who you are with only 2 months
I can guarentee you, you won't be fired because of the claim, BUT they will find a reason to fire you.

Jackblack18

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

Wouldn't be smart to claim off a company who you are with only 2 months
I can guarentee you, you won't be fired because of the claim, BUT they will find a reason to fire you.

But if they did sack me what could I do

Atlantic Dawn

What did the doctor say when you visited him/her regarding your serious injury?

The Bishop Basher

Jackblack18 wrote: »

A slip injury in a big puddle.

If it was a big puddle, how did you not see it ? Surely it's your own fault for slipping in it..

Tbh, you started in September and have been off sick since November because you slipped in a puddle.

If you worked for me i'd make sure you were exited from the company asap regardless of whether you claimed or not.

No doubt you are entitled to a decent pay day though such is the current situation with compo claims in this country.

Fann Linn

Jackblack18 wrote: »

A slip injury in a big puddle. Yes I was following company procedures. And I don't know if I have a probationary period.

You were following company procedures and you slipped. I don't know how your doctor has diagnosed you but if he has deemed it right to sign you off as you are unfit for work then I would have no qualms in making a claim.

Cazale

If it's still causing you issues then you should go to a solicitor. I hurt my back about 15 years ago in an accident and didn't claim anything as the company paid for me to go to physio a couple of times and they gave me a lighter work load etc. Problem is they shut down a year later and my back still isn't 100% right but I'm left with the bills. If it wasn't your fault you owe them nothing.

Jackblack18

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

What did the doctor say when you visited him/her regarding your serious injury?

That I'm damaged mussels in my neck

Jackblack18

Swanner wrote: »

If it was a big puddle, how did you not see it ? Surely it's your own fault for slipping in it..

Tbh, you started in September and have been off sick since November because you slipped in a puddle.

If you worked for me i'd make sure you were exited from the company asap regardless of whether you claimed or not.

No doubt you are entitled to a decent pay day though such is the current situation with compo claims in this country.

I didn't see it my head was up but why would you sack someone that's what insurance is for

duffman13

Jackblack18 wrote: »

I didn't see it my head was up but why would you sack someone that's what insurance is for

Have you been signed off since November? If your injured as a result put your claim in, if they let you go, you can do nothing unless they say they are letting you go cause you claim.

They won't say that because your in your first 12 months and they can let you go without a reason if they so choose.

mcgucc22

Jackblack18 wrote:

That I'm damaged mussels in my neck

I'd be more worried that you seem to have mussels in your neck rather than the fall you had to be honest

The Bishop Basher

Jackblack18 wrote: »

I didn't see it my head was up but why would you sack someone that's what insurance is for

Because you're a liability..

It's hassle no employer needs..

I'd get rid of you while I had the opportunity and hire someone who can actually do the work..

Don't mean to be harsh but you asked the question..

Avatar MIA

You had your head up, but couldn't see a large puddle? And what company policy was there that covered avoiding puddles?

TBH, they are going to lose trust in you. And they have not already sacked you?

You can be let go through missing work, even if it was an accident. They seem to be giving you a chance because you've not sued. But, sue and... get your CV ready.

Insurance claims are not cost free. The company's insurance premium will go up for years after. Sometimes companies go out of business because they cannot afford insurance premiums.

And you may want to go see a fisherman or restaurant about that...

MOD
Hope you have better jokes than that.

Mrs OBumble

Has the company sent you for a vision test yet?

Does your doctor think you'll ever recover enough to be able for physical work?

Losty Dublin

Jackblack18 wrote: »

That I'm damaged mussels in my neck

Did you land hard on your cockles-a bone?

nuac

Please - more legal discussion rather than ever lamer jokes

2Mad2BeMad

Jackblack18 wrote: »

But if they did sack me what could I do

Absolutely nothing,

You are working there 2 months, they can let you go for any reason at all.
If its a job that you can see yourself working in for the next few years.
ie. the wages are good, the staff and bosses are easy to work with, well then I wouldn't claim.
But if you insist on claiming or you really are badly badly injured well then go ahead claim
But don't expect to have a job in the next few months time, and don't expect a good reference either.

Ireland is a comp culture, so any employer would either think you are lying, or just got into the job and are looking for an easy hand out.
I mean even then your claim might not go through, how could you not see a puddle?

_Brian

There are sooo many angles to this thread.

As stated above, if you feel you have any future hold off claiming, get yourself well and get back to work when you can. It’s likely your probation will be extended no matter what now. But if you would like to continue there keep regular contact with managers there and show you are keen to return.

No matter what and even if you return and work hard you can be let go for essentially no reason so your career there could already be doomed.

You could contact them and explain that your injured and since you only worked there such a short time feel it’s unfair to hold open a position on them, be honest and you should get a reference and when your well move on to an new job.

Lastly, and I’m only saying this because it’s the legal position. You have a full TWO YEARS after the date of the accident to lodge a personal injury claim, you would need a reason to have waited so long but that’s where the law sits, it’s mad, but that’s it.

NUTLEY BOY

A detour back to the relevant working principles.

An employer owes an employee certain general duties of care. An employer also bears additional specific duties such as a safe system of work and a safe place of work to name two principal obligations.

This accident seems to have been witnessed by a number of posters on this thread given the presumptively definitive certainties that have been expressed about liability :rolleyes:.

If an employee has been injured as a direct result of the employer's negligence an arguable case is made out.

If an employee was to decline to take legal action for reasons of goodwill that is a gamble as the employer might try and dismiss them anyway. To resume the marine life metaphors, such an employee is likely to end up feeling like a right prawn i.e I didn't sue but they fired me anyhow ......

The employee should take advice from a solicitor to ascertain if, on the preliminary evidence, there is a stateable case and take it from there.

Avatar MIA

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

To resume the marine life metaphors, such an employee is likely to end up feeling like a right prawn i.e I didn't sue but they fired me anyhow ......

What's to stop the OP from suing post termination?

NUTLEY BOY

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What's to stop the OP from suing post termination?

Absolutely nothing.

At a practical level leaving a claim until after termination can have practical difficulties and may create a potential problem with credibility e.g. the only and real reason you sued was because you were fired !

hullaballoo

This is really going to rile up the rabble but even if the employee's act is completely their own fault, 100%, categorically their fault, the employer is still liable for their injuries.

Avatar MIA

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

At a practical level leaving a claim until after termination can have practical difficulties and may create a potential problem with credibility e.g. the only and real reason you sued was because you were fired !

Is that the experience from case law?

If that's the case it comes to down to whether the employee wants to risk it.

Personally I dealt with a false claim (they eventually admitted it once the absurdity of the claim was investigated) and the person didn't last long in the company afterwards - they were with the company a number of years and proper procedures were followed.

So, while the employee may be entitled to sue (and they are) the company will also form an opinion about the employee.

BattleCorp

The employee has already been off work approximately two months. It's unlikely that the Company will keep him on after such an absence so I wouldn't be pinning my hopes on being kept on. Whether it is right or wrong, the employee would most likely be viewed as trouble and Companies don't tend to keep such employees.

Another issue is the fact that this guy has been medically certified as unfit for work for two months. This clearly isn't an insignificant injury. There is no mention of him coming back to work either so we could be talking an extended period of time whereby the employee is unfit for work.

grogi

Fann Linn wrote: »

You were following company procedures and you slipped. I don't know how your doctor has diagnosed you but if he has deemed it right to sign you off as you are unfit for work then I would have no qualms in making a claim.

Have some personal responsibility people...

Masala

Did you report it at the time....??? What evidence have you that you gave the Company opportunity to investigate same ( Doctors assessment / CCTV footage / etc). Did you fill in a Report on same at the time.

I would expect that you will have to show that the Company are negligent in the leaving of the said puddle exposed. If you took shortcuts around the back where you were not supposed to be as part of your job. and slipped on a puddle around the side of the building ... you could be blamed for bringing the injury on yourself.

making claims 3-4 months after something happened (with no records) won't bode well in any claim.

hullaballoo

Masala wrote: »

Did you report it at the time....??? What evidence have you that you gave the Company opportunity to investigate same ( Doctors assessment / CCTV footage / etc). Did you fill in a Report on same at the time.

There is no obligation on the OP to report an incident. Nevertheless, it's difficult to imagine a situation where the OP could have been as seriously injured as he apparently has been and the employer kept in the dark about it.

I would expect that you will have to show that the Company are negligent in the leaving of the said puddle exposed. If you took shortcuts around the back where you were not supposed to be as part of your job. and slipped on a puddle around the side of the building ... you could be blamed for bringing the injury on yourself.

This is not the case in my view.

making claims 3-4 months after something happened (with no records) won't bode well in any claim.

This is not the case either in my view.

Meeeee79

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

If an employee has been injured as a direct result of the employer's negligence an arguable case is made out.

Can someone please explain how a puddle can be in any way negligence by an employer? I honestly cannot get over this comp culture.

BattleCorp

Meeeee79 wrote: »

Can someone please explain how a puddle can be in any way negligence by an employer? I honestly cannot get over this comp culture.

If the employer failed to maintain the roof in a safe working condition and rainwater was getting in.

If the employer failed to maintain plumbing in a safe working condition and water/liquids were leaking out.

That's two examples. I can probably think of 100.

LiamaDelta

hullaballoo wrote: »

This is not the case in my view.


This is not the case either in my view.

What is the case in your view?

LiamaDelta

BattleCorp wrote: »

If the employer failed to maintain the roof in a safe working condition and rainwater was getting in.

If the employer failed to maintain plumbing in a safe working condition and water/liquids were leaking out.

That's two examples. I can probably think of 100.

Or just simple failure to provide safe access and egress...

hullaballoo

LiamaDelta wrote: »

What is the case in your view?

...not what the person I quoted was trying to positively assert as matters of law?

There's a serious problem in this forum where people jump in and start stating as fact what they think the situation might be, without taking the facts as presented by the person asking the question into account and often without any knowledge of the law whatsoever to allow them to make a good go of things.

Anyway, my view is set out pretty much as fully as it can be without getting into the realm of actual legal advice in this thread.

The perception that any potential personal injury plaintiff has anything to do with "compo culture" is a complete misdirection of either (a) the term itself or (b) anger at the practice the term is supposed to describe. People who suffer genuine injuries due to someone else's negligence are absolutely, 100% morally, ethically and legally entitled to claim for damages and no one here or anywhere else should be pigheaded or stupid enough to interfere with or undermine that entitlement. These people are the victims of other people's wrongdoing. Blaming victims is compounding and masking the real problems of people causing injuries to others as well as a small percentage of people who fraudulently claim and or exaggerate injuries for the purpose of obtaining compensation.

Masala

hullaballoo wrote: »

...not what the person I quoted was trying to positively assert as matters of law?

There's a serious problem in this forum where people jump in and start stating as fact what they think the situation might be, without taking the facts as presented by the person asking the question into account and often without any knowledge of the law whatsoever to allow them to make a good go of things.

Anyway, my view is set out pretty much as fully as it can be without getting into the realm of actual legal advice in this thread.

The perception that any potential personal injury plaintiff has anything to do with "compo culture" is a complete misdirection of either (a) the term itself or (b) anger at the practice the term is supposed to describe. People who suffer genuine injuries due to someone else's negligence are absolutely, 100% morally, ethically and legally entitled to claim for damages and no one here or anywhere else should be pigheaded or stupid enough to interfere with or undermine that entitlement. These people are the victims of other people's wrongdoing. Blaming victims is compounding and masking the real problems of people causing injuries to others as well as a small percentage of people who fraudulently claim and or exaggerate injuries for the purpose of obtaining compensation.

This is Boards.... If the OP wants serious unflawed advice he should go to a solicitor. People shouldn't come on here looking foe definitive answers.... we will give our opinion... cos that is what OP asked for. No one is charging him for it.. and he can ignore if he likes.

hullaballoo

This is the legal discussion forum. For discussion of the law. Not the unfounded opinions forum...

The Bishop Basher

hullaballoo wrote: »

a small percentage of people who fraudulently claim and or exaggerate injuries for the purpose of obtaining compensation.

How do you know it's only a small percentage ?

Anecdotally, I reckon at least half of all claims are fraudulent to some extent but i'd love to see some data on it..

OP - Just out of interest. What would you be claiming for ?

Are the company not paying you while you're off ? Do you want them to cover your medical expenses ? Or do you just want to be compensated for slipping and hurting yourself ?

If it was me and i liked the job i'd put the head down, get the neck sorted, get back to work asap and start rebuilding both trust and your reputation so that you may have a chance of a future with them.

But submit a claim and you can kiss all that goodbye. And if any future employer gets a whiff of it you can probably say goodbye to that too.

Avatar MIA

Swanner wrote: »

OP - Just out of interest. What would you be claiming for ?

The OP hasn't posted since the day he originally posted - so, I wouldn't get your hopes up.

BattleCorp

Avatar MIA wrote: »

The OP hasn't posted since the day he originally posted - so, I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Lets play the speculation game.


Too sore to reply as a result of the injury

or

Went to a solicitor to begin his claim and has been told to shut the fcuk up on boards.

Pat Mustard

Swanner wrote: »

Anecdotally, I reckon at least half of all claims are fraudulent to some extent but i'd love to see some data on it.

Anecdotally, 50% of all statistics are made up. Or so the cliché goes.

Just like what you posted.

There is no evidence that what you have said is true.

You just made it up.

oal22

BattleCorp wrote: »

If the employer failed to maintain the roof in a safe working condition and rainwater was getting in.

If the employer failed to maintain plumbing in a safe working condition and water/liquids were leaking out.

That's two examples. I can probably think of 100.

The OP didn't really provide much in the way of details. They could have been working outside, and slipped in rainwater on the pavement or something similar.

Dakota Dan

oal22 wrote: »

The OP didn't really provide much in the way of details. They could have been working outside, and slipped in rainwater on the pavement or something similar.

Did they say it was a puddle of water, maybe it was oil? How could you slip in a puddle of water?

BattleCorp

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Did they say it was a puddle of water, maybe it was oil? How could you slip in a puddle of water?

The Bishop Basher

Pat Mustard wrote: »

There is no evidence that what you have said is true.

Maybe you missed the word "anecdotal" and the phrase "I reckon" but they were both in there

Regardless, there's no evidence that what i said is untrue either..

Dakota Dan

BattleCorp wrote: »

In fairness you'd need a certain floor surface for that to work, there was no mention of that either or whether it was indoors or outdoors.

Pat Mustard

Swanner wrote: »

Maybe you missed the word "anecdotal" and the phrase "I reckon" but they were both in there

Regardless, there's no evidence that what i said is untrue either..

If you make a statement like that, you should be able to back it up. Saying that there is nothing to contradict it is the same as requiring someone else to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative

hullaballoo

Even the most pessimistic figures released by those with vested interests in overstating the fraud issue go no further than speculating that suspicious (i.e. not necessarily fraudulent) claims could be as high as 12% of all claims that go to the MIBI, which is the main place you'd expect fraudulent claims to go.

If the overall number of fraudulent claims was as high as 5%, I would be astonished and more than a little bit disturbed.

The Bishop Basher

Pat Mustard wrote: »

If you make a statement like that, you should be able to back it up.

Agreed.

But I was responding to the statement that very few claims are fraudulent.

And once again, I used the phrase

"Anecdotally, I reckon.."

That leaves a lot of room for guess work. I never claimed to have the answer.

I gave an opinion based on my own experience. That was all.

hullaballoo wrote: »

Even the most pessimistic figures released by those with vested interests in overstating the fraud issue go no further than speculating that suspicious (i.e. not necessarily fraudulent) claims could be as high as 12% of all claims that go to the MIBI, which is the main place you'd expect fraudulent claims to go.

So in reality nobody knows.

One thing for certain though, people who make fraudulent claims or exaggerate genuine claims, tend not to share that information with the bodies and people who collate this data.

I've witnessed first hand how easily people can manipulate the system, fool the judge and walk away with a 5 figure sum.

Fair enough, i'll agree that 50% is probably a bit over the top but from my own personal observations I don't believe it's anywhere close to 12% either.

It's a significant windfall and relatively easily got if you're that way inclined.

Anywhere there's easy money there will be significant levels of fraud.

It's just human nature.

hullaballoo

Swanner wrote: »

So in reality nobody knows.

One thing for certain though, people who make fraudulent claims or exaggerate genuine claims, tend not to share that information with the bodies and people who collate this data.

I've witnessed first hand how easily people can manipulate the system, fool the judge and walk away with a 5 figure sum.

Fair enough, i'll agree that 50% is probably a bit over the top but from my own personal observations I don't believe it's anywhere close to 12% either.

It's a significant windfall and relatively easily got if you're that way inclined.

Anywhere there's easy money there will be significant levels of fraud.

It's just human nature.

It didn't take me long to find very recent reports from bodies with massively vested interests in overstating the level of fraudulent claims that say suspect claims may be as high as 12%.

My, admittedly subjective, reading of that is that the level of fraudulent claims is nowhere near as high as 12% but for your part, in the face of published reports that say this, repeatedly insisting that it's a much higher figure, when it is essentially now provably not so, is undermining your position.

Anyway, as I was driving at in my above post, conflating genuine claims and fraudulent ones is civically irresponsible if not dangerous and there is nothing in the OP to suggest that there is any fraud in play here, so it would be best to leave that discussion to one of the many other threads dealing with the specific issue of fraud.

grogi

hullaballoo wrote: »

It didn't take me long to find very recent reports from bodies with massively vested interests in overstating the level of fraudulent claims that say suspect claims may be as high as 12%.

But can you see a difference between fraudulent and silly claim?

Many claims might have some foundations in time lost or pain incurred, but they are simply ridiculous. In general, more and more people fail to take personal responsibility and rely on corporate bodies doing it for them.

We end up with people that don't know that Ice skating ring is slippery, water wet or knife sharp. They end up hurting themselves and did suffer, but any same person would say that no claim should be made against TPL policy. Instead they do claim and end up with massive settlements. I have witnessed that personally. That is "the culture".

The Bishop Basher

hullaballoo wrote: »

Anyway, as I was driving at in my above post, conflating genuine claims and fraudulent ones is civically irresponsible if not dangerous

It's also incredibly easy and very profitable but i agree. I have zero time for people who make fraudulent claims and i've walked away from a number of people I otherwise respected because of it.

Few things are uglier then greed imo.

hullaballoo wrote: »

and there is nothing in the OP to suggest that there is any fraud in play here, so it would be best to leave that discussion to one of the many other threads dealing with the specific issue of fraud.

Well OP hasn't given us much to go on but based on what we do know that's fair also enough and agreed.

But i'm with grogi when it comes to these sort of claims in general. People might be entitled to the money but there's a significant portion of the population who believe they shouldn't. Insurance costs are out of control, our injury awards are far too high and something has to change.

I could genuinely go on permanent sick tomorrow if I chose to and claim every disability benefit known to man, then go sue the dentist who damaged the nerve in my face that caused the chronic pain but I don't because it's not how I was raised.

The dentist had a bad day. **** happens. Money won't fix it. I'm otherwise alive and happy and thankful for that. I'd rather invest my time in sorting a problem then looking to see who i can blame.

But i appreciate not everyone sees it that way and for many the opportunity of a few bob is often just to good to pass up.. Maybe even worth losing your job over..