Normally, the employee receives medical coverage for the work related injury and the employee receives a portion of his or her wages while the employee recovers and cannot work. Generally the employee receives a portion of their average weekly wage for a the employee’s death was not compensable because he was not confronted with circumstances of an unusual or abnormal nature given his work as a security guard. As the record reflects, verbal confrontations occurred at least once a week at the store, and it was common for the employee to go out and yell at these people. However, the record also reflects that the individuals chased off by the employee threatened to return and kill him. We believe that this additional circumstance makes a difference and is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the employee’s death did not result from generalized employment conditions, but from something beyond the norm, even for a security guard. Accordingly, we find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that the employee’s death did not arise out of his employment.
The reason, simply put, is that the employee has met the burden of establishing that his heart failure was caused by a mental or emotional stimulus of an unusual or abnormal nature, beyond what is typically encountered by one in the employee’s position. We thus reiterate the rule again in this case that if the cause or stimulus of the heart attack is mental or emotional in nature, such as stress, fright, tension, shock, anxiety, or worry, there must be a specific, climatic event or series of incidents of an unusual or abnormal nature if the claimant is to be permitted a recovery, but no recovery is permitted for the ordinary mental stresses and tensions of one’s occupation because emotional stress, to some degree, accompanies the performance of any contract of employment. If the rule were otherwise, workers compensation coverage would become as broad as general health and accident insurance, which it is not.
We conclude that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that the employee’s death did not arise out of his employment. Accordingly, we agree with the Panel that the trial court erred in dismissing the case and that the case must be remanded for further proceedings. period of time. In most states the employee receives 66 percent, or two thirds, of their average weekly wage during the pendency of their time away from work recovering from the compensable injury. Keep in mind that worker compensation laws vary considerably from state to state.
- What if you suffer a heart attack due to stress on the job? Are you compensable under workers compensation?
- When does an injury arise out of and in the course of employment?
- What is considered a work related injury?
- What entity handles worker compensation claims?
- Why is workers compensation considered a form of compromise?
- What is the purpose of workers compensation?
- What is the key factor in determining whether employees may be included in a valid tip pool?
- What about employees receiving tips and how they are treated under FLSA?
- What is a Belo contract?
- What is the taxicab exemption ?
- In an FLSA case, who has the burden of proof to show that an employee is exempt from the overtime pay benefit?
- Do computer programmers and computer system analysts qualify as professionals and exempt from FLSA’s overtime provisions?
- Do blue collar workers who have great expertise in their respective jobs fall under the professional overtime exemption under FLSA?
- What are some of the exceptions to the overtime pay requirement?
- What state has the highest minimum wage law?
- Do all states have separate laws dealing with minimum wages?
- What is the major federal law regulating compensation for employees?
- What is the Lily Ledbetter Act?
- If your employer is not covered by the FMLA, are there any state laws that could help?
- What happens to an employee’s job when he or she returns from FMLA leave?