login
Employer must pay for weight loss surgery
-
No new posts
|
 2009-09-15 8:55 AM |
Champion  7347     SRQ, FL |  Subject: Employer must pay for weight loss surgeryhttp://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2009-09-10-weight-loss-surgery_N.htm An Indiana court has ruled that a pizza shop must pay for a 340-pound employee's weight-loss surgery to ensure the success of another operation for a back injury he suffered at work — raising concern among businesses bracing for more such claims. Wait.. what? The back surgery I can see but the lap band too? Wow...that's just not right... Edited by TriRSquared 2009-09-15 8:55 AM |
| 2009-09-15 9:13 AM in reply to: #2406907 |
Slower Than You 9566 Cracklantaburbs | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery If I was the pizza joint owner, I would appeal to the State Supreme Court. Gonna be $$$$$, but it will save people (and insurance companies) millions in the long run. Did it say whether the insurance company was helping him in his court proceedings? |
| 2009-09-15 9:16 AM in reply to: #2406907 |
| Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery Problem, I don't see any reason for Tort reform.
If you go into business you should expect to cover/pay for just about anything that can possibly be imagined. With judgments like this I'm surprised our health care costs aren't much higher than they are. |
| 2009-09-15 9:18 AM in reply to: #2406961 |
| Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery bcart1991 - 2009-09-15 7:13 AM If I was the pizza joint owner, I would appeal to the State Supreme Court. Gonna be $$$$$, but it will save people (and insurance companies) millions in the long run. Did it say whether the insurance company was helping him in his court proceedings?
It said it was a workers compensation claim and very few people are self insured for that so I think it's a safe assumption that his work comp carrier was defending the Pizza joint. |
| 2009-09-15 11:27 AM in reply to: #2406907 |
Expert 805 Portland,OR | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery Absolutely amazing. How about a little personal resonsibility for getting to 340 lbs in the first place? |
| 2009-09-15 11:56 AM in reply to: #2406907 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery The thing that bothers me is that it will make it more difficult for overweight people to get jobs in the first place. If there is a chance the person will gain weight to the point of morbid obesity, and then gets injured, the employer will not want to be on the hook to pay for the weight loss surgery. And firing someone for not maintaining a certain weight in most job situations is illegal (things like police and firemen, models, or other jobs where one's appearance and/or fitness level are a critical element to the job performance). |
| 2009-09-15 12:01 PM in reply to: #2407334 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery rsqdvr - 2009-09-15 12:27 PM Absolutely amazing. How about a little personal resonsibility for getting to 340 lbs in the first place? Maybe the pizza place encouraged the dude to eat... |
| 2009-09-15 12:04 PM in reply to: #2407444 |
Pro 4311 Texas | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery run4yrlif - 2009-09-15 12:01 PM rsqdvr - 2009-09-15 12:27 PM Absolutely amazing. How about a little personal resonsibility for getting to 340 lbs in the first place? Maybe the pizza place encouraged the dude to eat... If you're 340lb, you don't need encouragement. You're already doing plenty. |
| 2009-09-15 12:06 PM in reply to: #2407456 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery JBrashear - 2009-09-15 1:04 PM run4yrlif - 2009-09-15 12:01 PM If you're 340lb, you don't need encouragement. You're already doing plenty.rsqdvr - 2009-09-15 12:27 PM Absolutely amazing. How about a little personal resonsibility for getting to 340 lbs in the first place? Maybe the pizza place encouraged the dude to eat... Well...ya know...maybe dude weighed a buck sixty when he strated... |
| 2009-09-15 12:35 PM in reply to: #2407456 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery JBrashear - 2009-09-15 1:04 PM run4yrlif - 2009-09-15 12:01 PM If you're 340lb, you don't need encouragement. You're already doing plenty.rsqdvr - 2009-09-15 12:27 PM Absolutely amazing. How about a little personal resonsibility for getting to 340 lbs in the first place? Maybe the pizza place encouraged the dude to eat... Exactly... the guy didn't just wake up at 340lbs one morning. There is no argument to justify his lack of personal responsibility. |
| 2009-09-15 12:36 PM in reply to: #2407460 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery run4yrlif - 2009-09-15 1:06 PM JBrashear - 2009-09-15 1:04 PM run4yrlif - 2009-09-15 12:01 PM If you're 340lb, you don't need encouragement. You're already doing plenty.rsqdvr - 2009-09-15 12:27 PM Absolutely amazing. How about a little personal resonsibility for getting to 340 lbs in the first place? Maybe the pizza place encouraged the dude to eat... Well...ya know...maybe dude weighed a buck sixty when he strated... Yes, but everyone knows that the act of "strating" causes the scales to shave 180lbs off your actual weight so again... no excuses. |
| 2009-09-15 12:48 PM in reply to: #2407530 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery Pector55 - 2009-09-15 1:35 PM Exactly... the guy didn't just wake up at 340lbs one morning. There is no argument to justify his lack of personal responsibility. Thyroid disease? |
| 2009-09-15 12:52 PM in reply to: #2407534 |
Champion 5615 | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery I don't really see the issue with this. If you were to remove the visceral reaction to his weight, you have a much different case that, I believe, fewer would argue against. X was injured by Y. To restore X to a relative condition prior to the injury caused by Y, X needs surgery A. For surgery A to be successful, a corresponding surgery B will also need to be performed. As the payor you have the choice: pay for surgery A and surgery B, or repeatedly pay for surgery A as long as X can prove suffering from pain caused by Y. As stated in the link, "Boston's didn't present any evidence that his weight had been a medical problem before the accident." If Boston's comes back with evidence that the weight was a problem then I will re-evaluate my assertion. |
| 2009-09-15 1:52 PM in reply to: #2406907 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery No one is picking up on the low hanging fruit here. Loosing weight is possible without surgery. If we wants to get the surgery stop eating as much as you currently do and get out and exercise. Perhaps the back issues are preventing him from excising but you can still loose weight in other ways. I bet you the national debt that his attorney is telling him to not loose a pound right now. Maybe even to gain a little. Also why would it be the employer's burden to prove that the weight was an issue? If that's the case then no one is EVER going to hire ANYONE with a health problem becuase they might be liable for that problem in the future. Again it's a "every but my fault mentality". Edited by TriRSquared 2009-09-15 1:57 PM |
| 2009-09-15 2:01 PM in reply to: #2407579 |
Expert 805 Portland,OR | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery CubeFarmGopher - 2009-09-15 10:52 AM I don't really see the issue with this. If you were to remove the visceral reaction to his weight, you have a much different case that, I believe, fewer would argue against. X was injured by Y. To restore X to a relative condition prior to the injury caused by Y, X needs surgery A. For surgery A to be successful, a corresponding surgery B will also need to be performed. As the payor you have the choice: pay for surgery A and surgery B, or repeatedly pay for surgery A as long as X can prove suffering from pain caused by Y. As stated in the link, "Boston's didn't present any evidence that his weight had been a medical problem before the accident." If Boston's comes back with evidence that the weight was a problem then I will re-evaluate my assertion. I'd have to disagree with this. There are hundreds of studies ( and common sense) that shows that excess weight cause or contribute to numerous other medical issues, hence it's a problem. We don't know the circumstances of the injury except that he was hit by a freezer door, or something like that. If he was a more reasonable weight, would the door have hit him ie was he too big to fit through an area, who knows? But in the workman's comp cases I've been involved in they worked very hard at attributing some form of responsibility for injury to other factors. Specifically, I was a firefighter and had a knee injury while on the job. Tore the ACL carrying a patient out of a building. I had a previous knee injury 15 years earlier (just meniscus damage) and the lawyers succesfully argued that it had weakened my knee somewhat and I may not have been injured as badly had I been 100% (this was despite the fact that I started triathlons well after the first injury took place and had no issues). If they were correct, I don't see how this guy's excessive weight can't be seen as at least partially at fault for an injury. If so, how can an employer be responsible for that. Yes, getting the bypass does make it more likely that the back surgery would be successful, but the person should be responsible for some of it. If I was an employer I'dbe less inclined to hire someone who was morbidly obese if I thought I'd have to pay for their bypass surgery if they hurt themselves later on. Doesn't make me right but it's just my take on it. |
| 2009-09-15 2:06 PM in reply to: #2407579 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery CubeFarmGopher - 2009-09-15 1:52 PM I don't really see the issue with this. If you were to remove the visceral reaction to his weight, you have a much different case that, I believe, fewer would argue against. X was injured by Y. To restore X to a relative condition prior to the injury caused by Y, X needs surgery A. For surgery A to be successful, a corresponding surgery B will also need to be performed. As the payor you have the choice: pay for surgery A and surgery B, or repeatedly pay for surgery A as long as X can prove suffering from pain caused by Y. As stated in the link, "Boston's didn't present any evidence that his weight had been a medical problem before the accident." If Boston's comes back with evidence that the weight was a problem then I will re-evaluate my assertion. 340lbs is not a medical problem? Also, since when does a bad back make you gain 40lbs? That is a lot of excessive calories. If he knows he has to be more sedentary, shouldn't he have modified his diet accordingly? Who is responsible for that? hmmm Under the article, one guy actually posted, "If we had Universal Healthcare, this would be a non-issue." LOL Amazing! |
| 2009-09-15 2:07 PM in reply to: #2407740 |
Champion 14571 the alamo city, Texas | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery rsqdvr - 2009-09-15 3:01 PM CubeFarmGopher - 2009-09-15 10:52 AM I don't really see the issue with this. If you were to remove the visceral reaction to his weight, you have a much different case that, I believe, fewer would argue against. X was injured by Y. To restore X to a relative condition prior to the injury caused by Y, X needs surgery A. For surgery A to be successful, a corresponding surgery B will also need to be performed. As the payor you have the choice: pay for surgery A and surgery B, or repeatedly pay for surgery A as long as X can prove suffering from pain caused by Y. As stated in the link, "Boston's didn't present any evidence that his weight had been a medical problem before the accident." If Boston's comes back with evidence that the weight was a problem then I will re-evaluate my assertion. I'd have to disagree with this. There are hundreds of studies ( and common sense) that shows that excess weight cause or contribute to numerous other medical issues, hence it's a problem. We don't know the circumstances of the injury except that he was hit by a freezer door, or something like that. If he was a more reasonable weight, would the door have hit him ie was he too big to fit through an area, who knows? But in the workman's comp cases I've been involved in they worked very hard at attributing some form of responsibility for injury to other factors. Specifically, I was a firefighter and had a knee injury while on the job. Tore the ACL carrying a patient out of a building. I had a previous knee injury 15 years earlier (just meniscus damage) and the lawyers succesfully argued that it had weakened my knee somewhat and I may not have been injured as badly had I been 100% (this was despite the fact that I started triathlons well after the first injury took place and had no issues). If they were correct, I don't see how this guy's excessive weight can't be seen as at least partially at fault for an injury. If so, how can an employer be responsible for that. Yes, getting the bypass does make it more likely that the back surgery would be successful, but the person should be responsible for some of it. If I was an employer I'dbe less inclined to hire someone who was morbidly obese if I thought I'd have to pay for their bypass surgery if they hurt themselves later on. Doesn't make me right but it's just my take on it. i completely agree, rsq. if you want to drop obesity out of the equation, imagine i have scoliosis and have neglected doing the proper physical therapy for it my whole life, but i'm still able to work at my job. at work i fall and crush my hip. and a doc says i need to have surgery on my back or my hip replacement will just end up more messed up. i was negligent for years for a pre-existing condition and my employer should not be responsible. |
| 2009-09-15 2:22 PM in reply to: #2407724 |
Extreme Veteran 417 Buford GA | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery TriRSquared - 2009-09-15 2:52 PM Loosing weight is possible without surgery. If we wants to get the surgery stop eating as much as you currently do and get out and exercise. Perhaps the back issues are preventing him from excising but you can still loose weight in other ways. Don't you read Time, exercise doesn't work... But I was going to say the point may be the latter that exercise possibly cannot be done due to the injury. Still eat less, I get that the band limits your intake physically forcing you but if you are in a position that you can't fix your back that should be motiation to stop eating. |
| 2009-09-15 2:26 PM in reply to: #2407724 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery TriRSquared - 2009-09-15 12:52 PM No one is picking up on the low hanging fruit here. Loosing weight is possible without surgery. If we wants to get the surgery stop eating as much as you currently do and get out and exercise. Perhaps the back issues are preventing him from excising but you can still loose weight in other ways. I bet you the national debt that his attorney is telling him to not loose a pound right now. Maybe even to gain a little. Also why would it be the employer's burden to prove that the weight was an issue? If that's the case then no one is EVER going to hire ANYONE with a health problem becuase they might be liable for that problem in the future. Again it's a "every but my fault mentality". Duh, you have to go on the biggest loser or it doesn't work. |
| 2009-09-15 2:30 PM in reply to: #2407804 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery mrtopher1980 - 2009-09-15 3:22 PM Still eat less, I get that the band limits your intake physically forcing you but if you are in a position that you can't fix your back that should be motiation to stop eating. Exactly. Which is why I guarantee you he is NOT loosing weight. To help make his case. It's pitiful... |
| 2009-09-15 2:33 PM in reply to: #2407826 |
Pro 5123 Canandaigua NY | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery TriRSquared - 2009-09-15 3:30 PM mrtopher1980 - 2009-09-15 3:22 PM Still eat less, I get that the band limits your intake physically forcing you but if you are in a position that you can't fix your back that should be motiation to stop eating. Exactly. Which is why I guarantee you he is NOT loosing weight. To help make his case. It's pitiful... Actually the article states that since the injury his weight has gone from 340 to 380. Sadly, the only thing that surprises me about this is that it wasn't in New York. |
| 2009-09-15 2:36 PM in reply to: #2407826 |
Champion 10471 Dallas, TX | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery TriRSquared - 2009-09-15 2:30 PM mrtopher1980 - 2009-09-15 3:22 PM Still eat less, I get that the band limits your intake physically forcing you but if you are in a position that you can't fix your back that should be motiation to stop eating. Exactly. Which is why I guarantee you he is NOT loosing weight. To help make his case. It's pitiful... Why doesn't the employer pay for: 1) A nutritionist 2) A psychologist- to address the man's overeating issue I bet that would cost as much of the lap band and would help the man lose the weight... AND learn how to eat properly and how to keep the weight off. Edited by KSH 2009-09-15 2:36 PM |
 2009-09-15 2:52 PM in reply to: #2406907 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2009-09-15 3:14 PM in reply to: #2407847 |
| Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Employer must pay for weight loss surgery KSH - 2009-09-15 3:36 PM TriRSquared - 2009-09-15 2:30 PM Why doesn't the employer pay for: 1) A nutritionist 2) A psychologist- to address the man's overeating issue I bet that would cost as much of the lap band and would help the man lose the weight... AND learn how to eat properly and how to keep the weight off. mrtopher1980 - 2009-09-15 3:22 PM Still eat less, I get that the band limits your intake physically forcing you but if you are in a position that you can't fix your back that should be motiation to stop eating. Exactly. Which is why I guarantee you he is NOT loosing weight. To help make his case. It's pitiful... Because it's not the employer's responsibility. Perhaps the employee had a healthcare program that offered these things. We don't know. Even if they did not offer these programs, it's called personal responsibility. This country has lost the concept of that. |
| 2009-09-15 3:18 PM in reply to: #2407927 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK