Medrano Case Summary
Memorandum
TO: Professor William T. Jones
FROM: Can Liu
RE: Immar Medrano case
DATE: July 13, 2016
Question Presented
Are the actions of Immar Medrano, who was employed as a journeyman electrician by Marshall Electrical Contracting, Inc., at the time of the automobile accident within the course and scope of his employment, thus entitling his family members to workers’ compensation benefits?
Short Answer
Yes. The actions of Immar Medrano at the time of the automobile accident are within the course and scope of his employment. His death was caused by an employment-related injury. Therefore, the injury is compensable and his heirs have the right to receive workers’ compensation.
Statement of Facts
Immar Medrano was employed as a journeyman electrician by Marshall Electrical Contracting, Inc. (MEC), in Marshall, Missouri. After he joint Marshall Electrical …show more content…
(MEC), and he attended an electrician apprenticeship night class. Although it did not show that MEC required Medrano to take this course in the text, it was apparent that this course was related to Medrano’s employment. More importantly, MEC paid Medrano’s tuition and book fees. This fact showed that MEC knew and agree Medrano to take this night course. If Medrano completed the course, MEC and himself would have been beneficial from it. Therefore, the death of Medrano caused by an automobile accident when he was driving home from the night class was an employment-related injury. In other word, the injury was covered by workers’ compensation. Medrano’s wife and his two children are his heirs. Based on the definition of workers’ compensation, his family can get compensated for his death.
Conclusion
To sum up, Medrano’s death is compensable because it arises out of and in the course of employment. Therefore, Marshall Electrical Contracting, Inc. must compensate Medrano’s wife and his two children for the
TO: Professor William T. Jones
FROM: Can Liu
RE: Immar Medrano case
DATE: July 13, 2016
Question Presented
Are the actions of Immar Medrano, who was employed as a journeyman electrician by Marshall Electrical Contracting, Inc., at the time of the automobile accident within the course and scope of his employment, thus entitling his family members to workers’ compensation benefits?
Short Answer
Yes. The actions of Immar Medrano at the time of the automobile accident are within the course and scope of his employment. His death was caused by an employment-related injury. Therefore, the injury is compensable and his heirs have the right to receive workers’ compensation.
Statement of Facts
Immar Medrano was employed as a journeyman electrician by Marshall Electrical Contracting, Inc. (MEC), in Marshall, Missouri. After he joint Marshall Electrical …show more content…
(MEC), and he attended an electrician apprenticeship night class. Although it did not show that MEC required Medrano to take this course in the text, it was apparent that this course was related to Medrano’s employment. More importantly, MEC paid Medrano’s tuition and book fees. This fact showed that MEC knew and agree Medrano to take this night course. If Medrano completed the course, MEC and himself would have been beneficial from it. Therefore, the death of Medrano caused by an automobile accident when he was driving home from the night class was an employment-related injury. In other word, the injury was covered by workers’ compensation. Medrano’s wife and his two children are his heirs. Based on the definition of workers’ compensation, his family can get compensated for his death.
Conclusion
To sum up, Medrano’s death is compensable because it arises out of and in the course of employment. Therefore, Marshall Electrical Contracting, Inc. must compensate Medrano’s wife and his two children for the