Workman's comp or Unemployment??

Question

Just curious. If someone got hurt on the job shouldn't they draw workman's comp? I know someone that this has happened to and she is drawing unemployment and has been for over a year. Does this seem right?

She filed workmans comp before they laid her off because the company laid off several people and she was one due to too many restrictions. They never called her back. She did get an attorney I believe before they did the lay off and has been to court and still on the unemployment.?????

She never returned back to work. They called her while she was on medical leave and laid her off. She was hurt on the job and it required her to be off work hernia or back related??? She is able to work now but is drawing the unemployment she has applied at different jobs but the unemployment pays more so she continues to draw that. Doesn't make sense to me. If you are hurt on the job you should be getting workmans comp not unemployment. She says she is getting unemployment and her workman's comp case will settle in about a year??????

Answer 1

No, that's not quite right.

Unemployment lasts 30 weeks.

Workman's comp is not limited.

Must be drawing workman's comp but that may come from the same office/department as unemployment.

Answer 2

Just because a person has a work comp claim, it does not mean they will be paid money to be off work. When someone is released to regular work by their work comp doctor, they are no longer entitiled to temporary disability payments. In many states, employers are not obligated to hold a job open for an injured worker. So the person can collect unemployment insurance because they are able to work but were let go when they were off work for a work comp injury. Some people are released to return back to work by their doctor and then do not go back to work because they think they cannot work, the work comp carrier will not pay them, they may get an attorney and fight the return to work. In the mean time, they can apply for unemployment payments. However, unemployment payments are short term so your friend is not giving you correct information. Just because a person is released back to work, that does not mean their work comp claim is closed either.

Answer 3

It depends on the circumstances of the case. Was her injury that happened at work caused her to lose time from work? Or was this just a medical only file where the injury wasn't enough for her to lose time from work?

If she was injured at work and couldn't not go back to work because of her injuries than work comp should be paying her wages. However if she was laid off due to lack of work or cost cutting move by the company she cannot apply for unemployment because she's collecting workers comp benefits. By law, in some states, when a person is injured and can't go back to work and they are laid off as well, the company can't provide "modified duty". Because work comp is paying for her salary till she's released by her doctor her injury is preventing her from getting a job.
However if she was injured on the job and returned back to work than this would be a "medical only" file. Since she returned back to work full duty and laid off than she would qualify for unemployment. The only thing she's getting is just medical benefits and not wages.

Some states allow you to get unemployment and work comp benefits. But most states don't allow this, such as Hawaii and Oregon.

Answer 4

If a person is off work because they were hurt on the job, they should be getting workers comp, not unemployment.

That said, since unemployment only lasts for 6 months, she must be getting something other than that if she's been getting it for over a year.

Answer 5

If she works for a large enough employer to be covered by Worker's Comp, and if the job injury is acknowledged by the employer or she has witnesses or reasonable medical evidence to prove it, yes, she should be on Worker's Comp. There may be reasons why this wouldn't apply. Small employers in relatively safe industries aren't required to carry Worker's Comp. She might be an independent contractor rather than an employee. Or she might not have reported the work connection when she went for her first medical treatment. That one's hard to overcome, as we all tend to believe a person's first version. But if none of the above apply, yes, you are right.

Answer 6

I would recommend talking to your Work Comp claims adjuster regarding this situation. You are on disability from the Work Comp so you would not be allowed to collect unemployment. However, since your company does not offer "light duty" you may be able to take some kind of part time job that qualifies as light duty to the insurance company. Be very up front with the adjuster and they should be more than willing to help you figure something out. Good luck to you!

Answer 7

If you are still unable to work due to an injury, you draw workman's comp. If you are physically unable to work for any reason, you do not draw unemployment.

If you are physically able to do work, you do not draw workman's comp. If you have been laid off and are able to work, you draw unemployment.

Answer 8

Just because she FILED workers comp, doesn't mean the claim was ACCEPTED. If it was accepted, they only pay lost wages until she is physically capable of returning to work. If her job has then been eliminated, then she has to file unemployment. Workers comp only pays lost wages while you're actually disabled.

Answer 9

If she is able to go back to work, she should be drawing comp, the employer has to pay taxes on unemployment, so they shouldn't be bothered by the idea. However, ethically, if she is not going to go back to work, she needs to file for unemployment. The employer is paying 6.2% taxes on all earnings under $7,000.

Answer 10

She should be getting worker's comp, but maybe there's something unique about her situation. Is she able to return to her job? Or did the injury cause her to be unable to return?