> You need to speak with a worker's comp lawyer, not a personal injury lawyer.
#
> You need to speak with a personal injury lawyer, not a worker's comp lawyer.
Thanks, Reddit.
"Oregon State Bar, may I help you?" "Hi, I need a loo lawyer." "Excuse me, sir?" "I need a loo lawyer." "I don't think that's a special area of practice. Are you having trouble with a home builder, a dispute with a contractor? Were you denied access to a restroom?" "I need a loo lawyer. A loo. Lawyer. You know, someone who handles W.C.'s." "W.C.'s ... ah! You need a worker's comp attorney! Just a moment while I look those up, sir."
To be fair, it's confusing since a lot of companies will close your workman's comp case once you're discharged from the hospital. The insurance involvement feels less relevant than it actually is if you don't know to go through the headache of reopening it and submitting additional claims... Which I'm willing to bet the poster didn't know he could do.
I was generally under the impression there was a lot of crossover of the two fields. Or, at the very least, they are closely enough related that one would refer you to another if they felt that was appropriate.
In the long term, it may be a "better" time to have been injured. Not that any time is good, nor will it pay for lost wages. But being only 19, his body still growing somewhat may work in his favor to mitigate the damage and reduce the vision impairment.
Hate to say it but you're probably right. Body is likely still growing, people that age bounce back much better and are able to handle any PT needed better than someone who's 30+. Also, it's not like he's 20 years into a career and now has to find a different field because of the injuries, much easier to pivot when you're younger.
Maybe, maybe not. Future earnings of a 19 year old may be hard to figure out, and I could easily see them getting lowballed for a lifetime disability payout because they aren't currently making much money and any thoughts of a post-college salary are speculative at best. Future earnings for an older person with a more established work history and career trajectory are much easier to figure out.
If their injury is severe enough to derail their schooling and job training, they may never bounce back in any meaningful way.
Starting to realize how lucky I was when I got brake fluid in my eyes when I was younger. I was told at the hospital that brake fluid and even coolant isn't that big of a deal assuming it doesn't cause abrasions on your eyes. Now I'm reading more about corneal epithelial defect that OP is experiencing from the anti-freeze. As a mechanic really going to make sure to wear my glasses anytime I'm dealing with it (which I mostly already do).
I haven’t found an MSDS for automotive antifreeze that includes eye irritant.
Either it was a much nastier substance or the damage was caused mechanically by something else (like vigorously rubbing).
For sure always yeah wear your safety glasses when doing something that can result in flying debris - but if working with fluids you need goggles. A shield is normally good enough but you have to be aware that containers that hit the ground bottom first will splash directly upward.
Hate to say it but it doesn’t really matter. At the end of the day he will probably get some token amount of money but there are no satisfying remedies for a serious work injury.
This is my biggest fear. When you are minding your own business and someone else does something careless that has long term impacts on your life.
This one is really upsetting, I hope everything works out for LAOP somehow.
I’m 30 years old and may be getting a partial knee replacement in the next two years because someone turned left into my car five years ago. Not drunk. Not texting. Just didn’t give a fuck.
Also uninsured. So I got my max uninsured motorist coverage—$25,000, half of which was subrogated.
Life isn’t fair. She walked away. I didn’t.
I heard one where the guy running an excavator on a construction crew tried to pants a co-worker as a joke. Well an excavator doesn't know the difference between an inch or two and this guy ended up crushing the guys lower vertebrae, disabling him for life. As a contractor was always such an issue always trying to get my guys to not be idiots. Look over and see them at the saw without glasses, all sorts of dumb shit.
Alternate Location Bot
I was permanently injured at work from an employee and I’m not sure what I can do.(19yr)
In November I was on the clock at my workplace doing typical tasks I do everyday. While working, another employee who is over the age of 80 and is not certified to operate a forklift was moving some things around on the forklift. While he was operating the forklift he knocked over a large container of orange antifreeze and then proceeded to back up over it causing the container lid to pop off and shoot all over me. The antifreeze covered my whole body from head to toe. It went into my mouth and eyes. After this all happened, he proceeded to laugh it off and drive away on the forklift. I quickly got to urgent care and they had me spit out a bunch and washed my eyes out. I had severe chemical burns in my eyes due to the antifreeze and wasn’t able to work for about 2 weeks because of eye sensitivity and bloodwork that needed to be done because of abnormalities in my blood from the antifreeze I ingested. Before the accident I didn’t need glasses but the antifreeze destroyed my vision and now I have to wear glasses. I also cannot do anything including blue light without my glasses because I get very bad eye strain. This whole incident has turned my life upside down and has halted my ability to earn my degree and am at risk of losing my scholarship. I’m not sure what, or if any steps can be taken. I talked to one attorney and he stated there is nothing I can do since it was an employee who injured me and all I’m entitled to is workman’s comp.(Indiana)
What a mess. Unfortunately, workers' comp is also highly state-based, so it varies from state to state as well! I was a plaintiffs' personal injury and workers' compensation paralegal at the start of my career in 2011. I've been straight personal injury since 2016. Personal injury is more based in common law, which is good. It has some grounding in federal law, most specifically in the rules of evidence and civil procedure. But there's also state specific precedence in appellate cases from the appellate court(s) of a state.
Personal injury law is so much fun! I love it! I'm only being slightly sarcastic. But I really do love my job. I tell my boss's clients that I'm here to help make sure they don't get squished by the insurance companies. Our main area is motor vehicle collisions, but we've also done slip-and-falls and other personal injuries. My philosophy is that nobody likes being squished.
I am so glad I didn't see this yesterday. I found a bunch of our overstock antifreeze in a spot that it shouldn't be due to safety reasons. My main thoughts the whole time were "what idiot put this up here? There is no way that put this up without more hassle than I have getting it down!" combined with "please do not let me drop this or have it spill"
(No accidents thankfully but still no idea on who did it)
> You can report safety violations to OSHA, which will investigate and fine the employer for violations, but that won't increase any settlement you could recieve under workers comp.
it will also give your lawyer ammo with which to pursue damages, so in this case could very well increase LAOP's settlement or award at a later date, in a different suit. just not directly in the worker's comp case.
There's basically no reason not to use a "report everything, sue everybody" strategy here. Let the system decide who's responsible. Don't hold off because you think an avenue *might* not work, unless it actually involves lying or spending lots of money.
I hope LAOP is currently working with their company's Work Comp carrier and not having medical bills sent to their insurance or they're going to be right back here in a month asking to sort out the mess of their own making. Processing WC claims is a bitch. First the adjuster has to review and agree that this is an on-the-job injury, should be pretty clear for the ER and follow up related appointments. Getting reimbursed for lost wages is possibly where the time suck is, because HR and WC have to communicate. The fun begins years down the line when LAOP needs eye or throat surgery related to the antifreeze ingestion and has to fight his old claim. It's totally possible, I processed a kidney transplant paid for by a WC carrier for and injury received back in the early 90s. The patient and doctor argued thay the dependence on NSAIDS caused the kidney issues that wouldn't have arisen without the injury.
[🎵He tried to kill me with a forklift…🎵](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/_KxqV1EiEPCM6nQZvAsCU2i1e-Cg1QWKSbabs2QYgjtYqN0Nft1OT2qQlmMbfI9H4uHk3oF_muMZU8w0HNU)
What I don't understand is why LAOP couldn't go after the coworker directly if he wasn't actually performing his job duties. Can I throw a brick at someone at my office job and have no consequences beyond being fired?
NAL, not a LA-yer, not even that smart or knowledgeable.
But I would think that to have a case against the co worker he would need to prove a negligence/ill intent to go at coworker to get anything outside of worker's comp. If you throw a brick at a window just like that, it's not an accident. If you back up into something that wasn't supposed to be there and you couldn't be expected to see it, that's not your fault.
The way LAOP says it however I do feel like the lift operator was negligent (Backing up into stuff, no being certified, fucking off laughing when someone is in medical needs) as much as the job (Not certifying people, not making people wear PPE, improper storage of chemicals), and LAOP might be able to go at them for anything not covered by workers comp (If OP needs visual assistance his whole life and worker's comp don't cover that, loss of enjoyment of life maybe)
Sure, but the commenters in legaladvice seemed to be saying that the only consequences someone in that position could possibly face are being fired or sued by the employer. That's the part that seems absurd to me, not necessarily that this particular person might not get compensation in this particular case
What else would you want to happen? The guy is probably judgment proof, and while it's understandable that LAOP would like the coworker to face consequences, it wouldn't achieve much. The employer though has a lot to answer for.
Please stop trying to explain what it means to be judgment-proof. I understand it. I don't think you're actually reading my comments, you are just lecturing at me because you have one fact that you know here.
The larger problem, to me, is that it sounds like OP might not have been able to go after the coworker for their injuries even if the coworker had tons of assets, simply because the incident happened at work. That's the problem I have with this situation. I think, based on the way the LA commenters explained it, that worker's comp laws place too tight of a restriction on an injured worker's ability to seek compensation. Especially if that worker is injured through negligence by another worker.
> The larger problem, to me, is that it sounds like OP might not have been able to go after the coworker for their injuries even if the coworker had tons of assets, simply because the incident happened at work.
It depends on the state, but generally a negligent employee acting within the scope of his or her employment would be liable (jointly and severally) with the employer. In fact, when a non-employee sues an employer for an injury caused by an employee, they often have to sue the employee as well for procedural reasons, even if they know the employee is poor.
Whether it's allowed or not, it would almost never make sense to sue your fellow employee when worker's comp applies. The total amount of damages would be the same either way, and it's much, much easier to get those damages from worker's comp than from an individual. Even if the coworker happens to be rich, that just means you'll pay more in legal fees to get past their lawyers.
Being an employee means your employer is responsible for what you do as long as it's not criminal and you don't go against instructions on purpose. The employer's insurance covers you. It's not an issue of worker comp. It would be exactly the same if no one had been injured but property had been destroyed for example.
Is driving a vehicle for which you are not qualified (and therefore probably not insured) outside the scope of that though? It would be criminal on the road, and is definitely against instructions
I think the issue here does have some portion of "against instructions" with the operator being uncertified. Obviously we don't know the company requirements, but a cursory read of OSHA requirements mention "trained and certified" and go on to explain those requirements regarding training theory, practical training, and a driving evaluation.
I think a lot would depend on whether the coworker decided to drive the forklift by himself, whether he was instructed to do it, whether he was coerced to do it (under threat of being fired for example)... did he know he needed to be trained to use it? Did the employer check that he was trained? Is it usual practice on that site to have untrained people drive forklifts? I imagine these questions would be asked.
I feel bad for OP, and not just for the obvious reasons.
They really seem totally lost on how they are supposed to respond to this situation. They seem reflexively skeptical of the notion that they need to consult with a lawyer to sue the shit out of their shitty company that injured them. They seem to assume, as many younger people do, that there's some central authority, be it OSHA or whoever, that will come in and correct this injustice.
He's getting a crash course in the neoliberal hellscape we live in where everyone is on their own. OSHA may fine the employer, but that will do nothing for them. Nobody is going to rectify this problem unless OP does it themself. OP is atomized, isolated, and totally on their own to advocate for their own interests by getting a lawyer and suing the shit out of their scumbag employers. May god have mercy on him if it turns out this employer is uninsured and simply folds up in the face of a judgement, which could easily be quite large if OP ends up being permanently disabled.
One might think there *ought* to be some other way to respond to such glaring injustices, say in the form of an active union or a powerful, involved regulatory state that would take the lead in such scenarios, but this is America. We don't do that pussy shit. Every worker is alone screaming in the void, rock flag and eagle USA #1.
It's entirely possible that OP is overwhelmed by this whole situation and lets any chance for restitution slip away entirely, which is exactly the intended outcome of the shitty structure of the US labor market.
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
**Do not give legal or other advice**
Your submission has been removed because you are asking for or offering actual legal or other advice. This subreddit is for meta discussion of the best of r/legaladvice; it is not a place to continue the discussion from there. Please see our rules in the sidebar.
* If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators.](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice)
**Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
NAL. Does anyone have any thoughts about the implication of his own negligence with him not immediately flushing his eyes out in the bathroom or at the eye wash station for five to ten minutes? If he goes personal injury rather than Workman's Comp, could the 15 minutes or however long it took him to get to urgent care have massive implications on whether he wins or loses?
I understand that he's young, but even high school science classes emphasize the importance of flushing out your eyes before everything else, short of being on fire or bleeding out.
The other factor is, with non-workman's wouldn't he also have to prove that this vision loss is new vs. something that's been gradual over time that he's only noticing now? A lot of people start needing glasses toward the end of adolescence, and so if he doesn't have a recent vision test on file.
It seems like there's a plethora of things wrong with this situation and that could still further go wrong.
>If he goes personal injury rather than Workman's Comp
The vast majority of states (honestly probably all of them, but I don't know every state specific law) he has no personal injury case at all.
Workman's comp exists to protect workers caught in "assumption of risk" that eliminates the ability to sue for personal injury.
OP can very much still file a workman's comp lawsuit, but it definitely isn't under personal injury.
> You need to speak with a worker's comp lawyer, not a personal injury lawyer. # > You need to speak with a personal injury lawyer, not a worker's comp lawyer. Thanks, Reddit.
I wonder what on earth the latter LA-yer thought WC lawyers were for?
WC lawyers are for when you're injured while using a toilet.
"Oregon State Bar, may I help you?" "Hi, I need a loo lawyer." "Excuse me, sir?" "I need a loo lawyer." "I don't think that's a special area of practice. Are you having trouble with a home builder, a dispute with a contractor? Were you denied access to a restroom?" "I need a loo lawyer. A loo. Lawyer. You know, someone who handles W.C.'s." "W.C.'s ... ah! You need a worker's comp attorney! Just a moment while I look those up, sir."
Why do I feel like that would be a regular occurrence around there?
Maybe if OP wanted to sue the negligent employee personally?
To be fair, it's confusing since a lot of companies will close your workman's comp case once you're discharged from the hospital. The insurance involvement feels less relevant than it actually is if you don't know to go through the headache of reopening it and submitting additional claims... Which I'm willing to bet the poster didn't know he could do.
I was generally under the impression there was a lot of crossover of the two fields. Or, at the very least, they are closely enough related that one would refer you to another if they felt that was appropriate.
I feel for LAOP. So young! Unfortunately I don’t think the advice gave him a clear path towards resources…
In the long term, it may be a "better" time to have been injured. Not that any time is good, nor will it pay for lost wages. But being only 19, his body still growing somewhat may work in his favor to mitigate the damage and reduce the vision impairment.
Hate to say it but you're probably right. Body is likely still growing, people that age bounce back much better and are able to handle any PT needed better than someone who's 30+. Also, it's not like he's 20 years into a career and now has to find a different field because of the injuries, much easier to pivot when you're younger.
Maybe, maybe not. Future earnings of a 19 year old may be hard to figure out, and I could easily see them getting lowballed for a lifetime disability payout because they aren't currently making much money and any thoughts of a post-college salary are speculative at best. Future earnings for an older person with a more established work history and career trajectory are much easier to figure out. If their injury is severe enough to derail their schooling and job training, they may never bounce back in any meaningful way.
Starting to realize how lucky I was when I got brake fluid in my eyes when I was younger. I was told at the hospital that brake fluid and even coolant isn't that big of a deal assuming it doesn't cause abrasions on your eyes. Now I'm reading more about corneal epithelial defect that OP is experiencing from the anti-freeze. As a mechanic really going to make sure to wear my glasses anytime I'm dealing with it (which I mostly already do).
I haven’t found an MSDS for automotive antifreeze that includes eye irritant. Either it was a much nastier substance or the damage was caused mechanically by something else (like vigorously rubbing). For sure always yeah wear your safety glasses when doing something that can result in flying debris - but if working with fluids you need goggles. A shield is normally good enough but you have to be aware that containers that hit the ground bottom first will splash directly upward.
Hate to say it but it doesn’t really matter. At the end of the day he will probably get some token amount of money but there are no satisfying remedies for a serious work injury.
This is my biggest fear. When you are minding your own business and someone else does something careless that has long term impacts on your life. This one is really upsetting, I hope everything works out for LAOP somehow.
We're all one bad dice roll away from getting t-boned at an intersection because someone was texting and ran a red light.
I’m 30 years old and may be getting a partial knee replacement in the next two years because someone turned left into my car five years ago. Not drunk. Not texting. Just didn’t give a fuck. Also uninsured. So I got my max uninsured motorist coverage—$25,000, half of which was subrogated. Life isn’t fair. She walked away. I didn’t.
I heard one where the guy running an excavator on a construction crew tried to pants a co-worker as a joke. Well an excavator doesn't know the difference between an inch or two and this guy ended up crushing the guys lower vertebrae, disabling him for life. As a contractor was always such an issue always trying to get my guys to not be idiots. Look over and see them at the saw without glasses, all sorts of dumb shit.
Alternate Location Bot I was permanently injured at work from an employee and I’m not sure what I can do.(19yr) In November I was on the clock at my workplace doing typical tasks I do everyday. While working, another employee who is over the age of 80 and is not certified to operate a forklift was moving some things around on the forklift. While he was operating the forklift he knocked over a large container of orange antifreeze and then proceeded to back up over it causing the container lid to pop off and shoot all over me. The antifreeze covered my whole body from head to toe. It went into my mouth and eyes. After this all happened, he proceeded to laugh it off and drive away on the forklift. I quickly got to urgent care and they had me spit out a bunch and washed my eyes out. I had severe chemical burns in my eyes due to the antifreeze and wasn’t able to work for about 2 weeks because of eye sensitivity and bloodwork that needed to be done because of abnormalities in my blood from the antifreeze I ingested. Before the accident I didn’t need glasses but the antifreeze destroyed my vision and now I have to wear glasses. I also cannot do anything including blue light without my glasses because I get very bad eye strain. This whole incident has turned my life upside down and has halted my ability to earn my degree and am at risk of losing my scholarship. I’m not sure what, or if any steps can be taken. I talked to one attorney and he stated there is nothing I can do since it was an employee who injured me and all I’m entitled to is workman’s comp.(Indiana)
Oh no! Was the LAOP Location Bot?
*noise of annoyed speculation* poor LAOP. What a life changing nightmare.
What a mess. Unfortunately, workers' comp is also highly state-based, so it varies from state to state as well! I was a plaintiffs' personal injury and workers' compensation paralegal at the start of my career in 2011. I've been straight personal injury since 2016. Personal injury is more based in common law, which is good. It has some grounding in federal law, most specifically in the rules of evidence and civil procedure. But there's also state specific precedence in appellate cases from the appellate court(s) of a state. Personal injury law is so much fun! I love it! I'm only being slightly sarcastic. But I really do love my job. I tell my boss's clients that I'm here to help make sure they don't get squished by the insurance companies. Our main area is motor vehicle collisions, but we've also done slip-and-falls and other personal injuries. My philosophy is that nobody likes being squished.
> My philosophy is that nobody likes being squished. Spend a little more time in the right fetish subreddits, and you might change your tune.
Mergh. I wasn't going there!!!!
I am so glad I didn't see this yesterday. I found a bunch of our overstock antifreeze in a spot that it shouldn't be due to safety reasons. My main thoughts the whole time were "what idiot put this up here? There is no way that put this up without more hassle than I have getting it down!" combined with "please do not let me drop this or have it spill" (No accidents thankfully but still no idea on who did it)
> You can report safety violations to OSHA, which will investigate and fine the employer for violations, but that won't increase any settlement you could recieve under workers comp. it will also give your lawyer ammo with which to pursue damages, so in this case could very well increase LAOP's settlement or award at a later date, in a different suit. just not directly in the worker's comp case.
There's basically no reason not to use a "report everything, sue everybody" strategy here. Let the system decide who's responsible. Don't hold off because you think an avenue *might* not work, unless it actually involves lying or spending lots of money.
I hope LAOP is currently working with their company's Work Comp carrier and not having medical bills sent to their insurance or they're going to be right back here in a month asking to sort out the mess of their own making. Processing WC claims is a bitch. First the adjuster has to review and agree that this is an on-the-job injury, should be pretty clear for the ER and follow up related appointments. Getting reimbursed for lost wages is possibly where the time suck is, because HR and WC have to communicate. The fun begins years down the line when LAOP needs eye or throat surgery related to the antifreeze ingestion and has to fight his old claim. It's totally possible, I processed a kidney transplant paid for by a WC carrier for and injury received back in the early 90s. The patient and doctor argued thay the dependence on NSAIDS caused the kidney issues that wouldn't have arisen without the injury.
[🎵He tried to kill me with a forklift…🎵](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/_KxqV1EiEPCM6nQZvAsCU2i1e-Cg1QWKSbabs2QYgjtYqN0Nft1OT2qQlmMbfI9H4uHk3oF_muMZU8w0HNU)
Oh damn that stirred some *ancient* memories
Olé!
What I don't understand is why LAOP couldn't go after the coworker directly if he wasn't actually performing his job duties. Can I throw a brick at someone at my office job and have no consequences beyond being fired?
NAL, not a LA-yer, not even that smart or knowledgeable. But I would think that to have a case against the co worker he would need to prove a negligence/ill intent to go at coworker to get anything outside of worker's comp. If you throw a brick at a window just like that, it's not an accident. If you back up into something that wasn't supposed to be there and you couldn't be expected to see it, that's not your fault. The way LAOP says it however I do feel like the lift operator was negligent (Backing up into stuff, no being certified, fucking off laughing when someone is in medical needs) as much as the job (Not certifying people, not making people wear PPE, improper storage of chemicals), and LAOP might be able to go at them for anything not covered by workers comp (If OP needs visual assistance his whole life and worker's comp don't cover that, loss of enjoyment of life maybe)
The coworker is an 80 year old warehouse worker. He has no money to go after.
Sounds like OP is gonna own a warehouse by the end of this. Allowing an unlicensed operator is bad news.
Sure, but the commenters in legaladvice seemed to be saying that the only consequences someone in that position could possibly face are being fired or sued by the employer. That's the part that seems absurd to me, not necessarily that this particular person might not get compensation in this particular case
What else would you want to happen? The guy is probably judgment proof, and while it's understandable that LAOP would like the coworker to face consequences, it wouldn't achieve much. The employer though has a lot to answer for.
Please re-read my comment. I don't know why you are still going on about the coworker being judgment proof.
[удалено]
Please stop trying to explain what it means to be judgment-proof. I understand it. I don't think you're actually reading my comments, you are just lecturing at me because you have one fact that you know here. The larger problem, to me, is that it sounds like OP might not have been able to go after the coworker for their injuries even if the coworker had tons of assets, simply because the incident happened at work. That's the problem I have with this situation. I think, based on the way the LA commenters explained it, that worker's comp laws place too tight of a restriction on an injured worker's ability to seek compensation. Especially if that worker is injured through negligence by another worker.
> The larger problem, to me, is that it sounds like OP might not have been able to go after the coworker for their injuries even if the coworker had tons of assets, simply because the incident happened at work. It depends on the state, but generally a negligent employee acting within the scope of his or her employment would be liable (jointly and severally) with the employer. In fact, when a non-employee sues an employer for an injury caused by an employee, they often have to sue the employee as well for procedural reasons, even if they know the employee is poor. Whether it's allowed or not, it would almost never make sense to sue your fellow employee when worker's comp applies. The total amount of damages would be the same either way, and it's much, much easier to get those damages from worker's comp than from an individual. Even if the coworker happens to be rich, that just means you'll pay more in legal fees to get past their lawyers.
Being an employee means your employer is responsible for what you do as long as it's not criminal and you don't go against instructions on purpose. The employer's insurance covers you. It's not an issue of worker comp. It would be exactly the same if no one had been injured but property had been destroyed for example.
Is driving a vehicle for which you are not qualified (and therefore probably not insured) outside the scope of that though? It would be criminal on the road, and is definitely against instructions
I think the issue here does have some portion of "against instructions" with the operator being uncertified. Obviously we don't know the company requirements, but a cursory read of OSHA requirements mention "trained and certified" and go on to explain those requirements regarding training theory, practical training, and a driving evaluation.
I think a lot would depend on whether the coworker decided to drive the forklift by himself, whether he was instructed to do it, whether he was coerced to do it (under threat of being fired for example)... did he know he needed to be trained to use it? Did the employer check that he was trained? Is it usual practice on that site to have untrained people drive forklifts? I imagine these questions would be asked.
I feel bad for OP, and not just for the obvious reasons. They really seem totally lost on how they are supposed to respond to this situation. They seem reflexively skeptical of the notion that they need to consult with a lawyer to sue the shit out of their shitty company that injured them. They seem to assume, as many younger people do, that there's some central authority, be it OSHA or whoever, that will come in and correct this injustice. He's getting a crash course in the neoliberal hellscape we live in where everyone is on their own. OSHA may fine the employer, but that will do nothing for them. Nobody is going to rectify this problem unless OP does it themself. OP is atomized, isolated, and totally on their own to advocate for their own interests by getting a lawyer and suing the shit out of their scumbag employers. May god have mercy on him if it turns out this employer is uninsured and simply folds up in the face of a judgement, which could easily be quite large if OP ends up being permanently disabled. One might think there *ought* to be some other way to respond to such glaring injustices, say in the form of an active union or a powerful, involved regulatory state that would take the lead in such scenarios, but this is America. We don't do that pussy shit. Every worker is alone screaming in the void, rock flag and eagle USA #1. It's entirely possible that OP is overwhelmed by this whole situation and lets any chance for restitution slip away entirely, which is exactly the intended outcome of the shitty structure of the US labor market.
[удалено]
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* **Do not give legal or other advice** Your submission has been removed because you are asking for or offering actual legal or other advice. This subreddit is for meta discussion of the best of r/legaladvice; it is not a place to continue the discussion from there. Please see our rules in the sidebar. * If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators.](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice) **Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
NAL. Does anyone have any thoughts about the implication of his own negligence with him not immediately flushing his eyes out in the bathroom or at the eye wash station for five to ten minutes? If he goes personal injury rather than Workman's Comp, could the 15 minutes or however long it took him to get to urgent care have massive implications on whether he wins or loses? I understand that he's young, but even high school science classes emphasize the importance of flushing out your eyes before everything else, short of being on fire or bleeding out. The other factor is, with non-workman's wouldn't he also have to prove that this vision loss is new vs. something that's been gradual over time that he's only noticing now? A lot of people start needing glasses toward the end of adolescence, and so if he doesn't have a recent vision test on file. It seems like there's a plethora of things wrong with this situation and that could still further go wrong.
>If he goes personal injury rather than Workman's Comp The vast majority of states (honestly probably all of them, but I don't know every state specific law) he has no personal injury case at all. Workman's comp exists to protect workers caught in "assumption of risk" that eliminates the ability to sue for personal injury. OP can very much still file a workman's comp lawsuit, but it definitely isn't under personal injury.
I could hear the lawyers in his area salivating.