Medrano's Compensation Case Study
Workers’ Compensation
Before meeting his death, Immar Medrano was an employee of Marshalls Electrical Contracting Incorporation employed. Medrano died in a road accident on February 28, 2011 when his car was hit by a drunk truck driver as he was driving a traineeship night class in Sedalia back home (FindLaw). Medrano’s employer covered his book and tuition fees for the classes he was attending.
The law provides workers with the right to seek reimbursement for damages sustained when returning from or going to the workplace. However, the law grants an immunity when a worker is traveling or attending an occasion sponsored by the employer if the activity profit the organization. According to The dual purpose doctrine,
“if the exposure to the perils of the highway is related to the employment even though the employment is not the sole cause of such exposure to such risks but is combined with or is a concurrent personal cause, the benefit of compensation is not to be withdrawn” (FindLaw).
Therefore, his injury was compensable given that Medrano was returning home from training night class sponsored by the employer. It is indisputable that by Medrano attending apprenticeship classes, his work skills would improve and directly benefit the company. Additionally, the fact that the company was paying his tuition and book fees is a stable ground …show more content…
It was clear that by attending apprenticeship classes both him and the employer were set to benefit mutually.
Work Cited
Bertelli, Anthony M., and Lilliard E. Richardson. "The Behavioral Impact of Drinking and Driving Laws." Policy Studies Journal (2012): 545-569.
FindLaw. “Immar MEDRANO, Respondent, v. Marshall Electrical Contracting.” Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. Thomson Reuters. 25 Jul. 2005. Web. 7 Nov. 2017.
Mackaay and Ejan. Law and Economics for Civil Law Systems. Edward Elgar Publishing,
Before meeting his death, Immar Medrano was an employee of Marshalls Electrical Contracting Incorporation employed. Medrano died in a road accident on February 28, 2011 when his car was hit by a drunk truck driver as he was driving a traineeship night class in Sedalia back home (FindLaw). Medrano’s employer covered his book and tuition fees for the classes he was attending.
The law provides workers with the right to seek reimbursement for damages sustained when returning from or going to the workplace. However, the law grants an immunity when a worker is traveling or attending an occasion sponsored by the employer if the activity profit the organization. According to The dual purpose doctrine,
“if the exposure to the perils of the highway is related to the employment even though the employment is not the sole cause of such exposure to such risks but is combined with or is a concurrent personal cause, the benefit of compensation is not to be withdrawn” (FindLaw).
Therefore, his injury was compensable given that Medrano was returning home from training night class sponsored by the employer. It is indisputable that by Medrano attending apprenticeship classes, his work skills would improve and directly benefit the company. Additionally, the fact that the company was paying his tuition and book fees is a stable ground …show more content…
It was clear that by attending apprenticeship classes both him and the employer were set to benefit mutually.
Work Cited
Bertelli, Anthony M., and Lilliard E. Richardson. "The Behavioral Impact of Drinking and Driving Laws." Policy Studies Journal (2012): 545-569.
FindLaw. “Immar MEDRANO, Respondent, v. Marshall Electrical Contracting.” Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. Thomson Reuters. 25 Jul. 2005. Web. 7 Nov. 2017.
Mackaay and Ejan. Law and Economics for Civil Law Systems. Edward Elgar Publishing,