In this case, workers’ compensation coverage was provided by the home health care agency that employed Carolyn Gregory, and she was entitled to receive those benefitsīut what happens if a hired caregiver incurs a serious injury and no insurance covers the worker? Without that coverage, the results could be even more devastating for both the caregiver and the family. This case should be alarming for people who hire home health workers and pay them under the table, without any workers’ compensation coverage. The rule we adopt is limited to professional home health care workers who are trained and employed by an agency.” Lessons and Implications for Families Who Hire Professional Caregivers They concluded, “We do not hold that anyone who helps with such patients assumes the risk of injury. The judges acknowledged that Gregory was not a doctor or a nurse but also pointed out that it is her occupation to care for seniors with Alzheimer’s disease. If a patient injures a caregiver by engaging in the combative behavior symptomatic of Alzheimer’s disease, the particular risk of harm that caused the injury was among the very risks the caregiver was hired to prevent.” “Caregivers are hired to protect the patients from harming themselves or others. Gregory also claimed that home health care workers should not be required to assume they are at risk for this type of injury because “the home environment lacks the specialized equipment and trained health care professionals found in institutions.”īut the judges were not persuaded that she was any different from health care workers who are employed by institutions like assisted living facilities and skilled nursing facilities. Gregory conceded “that he informed her of Lorraine’s combative tendencies.” Therefore, the Court concluded there is no way the family of an Alzheimer’s patient “can reasonably be required to anticipate every variation of circumstance in which a disclosed risk might develop.” While it’s true that defendants who misrepresent or hide a hazardous condition are subject to liability, there was no claim of deception by Mr. Gregory claimed that “she was not specifically warned that Lorraine might approach her from behind while she was washing dishes.” Honest and open communication between caregiver and client carried the day for the Cotts. Quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision, “Lorraine approached her from behind, bumped into her, and reached toward the sink.” When Gregory then tried “to restrain Lorraine, she dropped the knife, which struck her wrist.” Why the Cotts Weren’t Found Liable Cott was not at home on the day that Gregory was washing a large knife in the kitchen sink. Cott had told Gregory that his wife Lorraine “was combative and would bite, kick, scratch and flail.” Gregory’s duties “included supervising, bathing, dressing, and transporting Lorraine, as well as some housekeeping.” These workers take responsibility for the risk of injury or death when they go to work every day. The Cotts’ successful defense was that their caregiver knew what she was getting into, just as firemen, police, veterinarians and life guards understand that they are risking serious injury or even death while on the job. ![]() ![]() Cott were the “third parties” to the employment relationship between Gregory and her home health care agency.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |