Denial of Kimberly Purcell’s Compensation Claim

Important Facts 

When Kimberly Purcell applied to Friday Staffing for a job opening on 28th May 2010, she provided false information regarding her abilities and medical condition. The plaintiff was issued with two questionnaire forms to fill during the recruitment process. In the Friday Essential Functions Questionnaire forms, the plaintiff indicated that she could lift or carry loads of 50 pounds or more (Conger, 2015). Likewise, in the Medical History Questionnaire, she failed to disclose that she had experienced a back injury, had back surgery and had filed for worker’s compensation claim. 

The plaintiff had injured her back in 1999 while under the employment of Quality Assured Enterprises, and after a microdiscectomy, her physician permitted her to lift loads less than 20 pounds. Following the injury, the plaintiff filed a compensation claim and received USD$50,000 as a Compromise Settlement Agreement. Kimberly Purcell had erred in falsifying her medical condition and history of compensation claim as this does not substantiate material evidence to deny her employment (Siedel, 1999). On the contrary, the falsified documents constituted supportive evidence to deny her a workers compensation claim as demonstrated by the present litigation. 

The plaintiff, through an oral interview, had further made affirmations to be capable of lifting and carrying loads of fifty pounds and more. Therefore, the business affected by this decision includes the defendant drawing conclusions from it and employing her in a position that was not suitable for her. The position involved carrying boxes that weighed between 25 and 20 pounds, a transgression against her physician’s prescription. Otherwise, it would be advisable for businesses to include in their employment forms that the previous history will not disqualify them from employment but rather for job position stationing. 

Parties to the Legal Proceeding 

Since the attorney and the judges cannot be termed as deriving any interests from the legal proceedings other than seeking justice, furthermore, the insurance company contracted by Friday Staffing cannot likewise be termed as a party to the litigation. Therefore, the parties to this civil proceeding are Kimberly Purcell the Plaintiff and Friday Staffing the Defendant. 

Legal Issues 

After Friday Staffing denied her any compensation claims, the plaintiff had sought legal addresses from worker’s compensation commissioner who denied her the claim. Further pursuance of the matter with the North Carolina Industrial Commission did not yield any fruits as the claim was unequivocally denied (Singer, 2018). Her final endeavors with North Carolina Court of Appeals did not amount to any profit as the denial of the claim was upheld. 

She fell victim to North Carolina’s updated laws on worker’s compensation that prohibits employees from claiming recompense for their work-related injuries if their legal proceedings comprised: 

The employer depending upon inaccurate information presented by the employee and the dependence was a critical factor in the process of their recruitment. An example is the dependence of Friday Staffing on the information offered by Kimberly Purcell during the contemplation on the decision to station her at a position that involved lifting and carrying heavy loads. 

An underlying link between the inaccurate information provided an injury. Since Kimberly was nursing a back injury sustained in her previous employment, there was a direct connection between the information furnished and the injury incurred during her service at Friday Staffing. 

The employee intentionally and deliberately provided inaccurate information concerning his or her health disorder. Knowing perfectly well that she was not permitted to lift loads of more than 20 pounds due to an injury that she used to file for recompense, Kimberly Purcell lied. 

Jurisdiction 

The North Carolina Court of Appeals’ where the plaintiff petitioned the award and opinion of the Industrial Commission that repudiated her claim for recompense. One of the reasons the courts have jurisdiction over the litigation is because the parties hail from within its boundaries. Secondly and most importantly, it is mandated to review the proceedings that transpired in the Industrial Commission for errors of the law as presented by the plaintiff (Kilgour, Kosny, McKenzie, & Collie, 2015). She contended that the Industrial Commission applied incorrectly N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97–12.1 (2013) in its conclusion that her present injury was linked to an injury that she sustained and censored during her job application. 

Legal Analysis 

The Industrial Commission, in its ruling, applied N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97–12.1 (2013) which the plaintiff disputes as incorrectly construed. The law states that: 

Under the article, no recompense shall be made for damage caused by occupational disease or accident if the employer can substantiate that i) At the time of post-offer examination for medical conditions, ii) during the process of recruitment or engagement into the hiring process, or iii) during the period of accepting notification of the exclusion of conditions from a provisional proposal of employment: 

The employer depending upon inaccurate information presented by the employee and the dependence was a critical factor in the process of their recruitment. 

An underlying link between the inaccurate information provided an injury. 

The employee intentionally and deliberately provided inaccurate information concerning his or her health disorder. 

The plaintiff had no qualms over the first and third elements but the second element that she disputes on appeal. She is adamant that the commission blundered in establishing an underlying link in the second element. In her argument, she insists that the defendants must prove beyond reasonable doubt that her injury was due to the inaccurate information she presented. The defendants on their part respond that the plaintiff applied the wrong causation standard in her interpretation of the law. 

The Law 

There is no need to change the law as the plaintiff first interprets the law inaccurately as defined by the defendant. Secondly, the plaintiff is in agreement with the other two elements of the law. And lastly, she failed either intentionally or non-intentionally to follow her physician’s prescription after that led to the present injury. Thus, the plaintiff is facing the predicament due to her recklessness and despise for her well-being. 

Business Action Plan

Friday Staffing

DURATION: April 2019 - JUNE 2019

OBJECTIVE

ACTIVITY

RESPONSIBLE PERSON

COMPLETION DATE

COMMENTS

Clarification of Employment Status

i. Review of employees questionnaire forms ii. Alignment of employment frameworks

Human Resource Manager

29th May 2019

Training

i. Training on workers’ rights to request for predictable and stable employment contract ii. Training on the importance of submitting accurate information.

General Manager

20th June 2019

Recruitment

Identify the required set of skills to add to the current team through the assistance of a recruitment agency with the employment exercise

Sales Manager

29 th June 2019

References 

Conger, S. (2015). Six sigma and business process management. In  Handbook on Business Process Management 1  (pp. 127-146). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 

Siedel, G. J. (1999). Six forces and the legal environment of business: The relative value of business law among business school core courses.  Am. Bus. LJ ,  37 , 717. 

Singer, L. (2018).  Settling disputes: Conflict resolution in business, families, and the legal system . Routledge. 

Kilgour, E., Kosny, A., McKenzie, D., & Collie, A. (2015). Interactions between injured workers and insurers in workers’ compensation systems: a systematic review of qualitative research literature.  Journal of occupational rehabilitation ,  25 (1), 160-181.