Too Much Stress - You Decide
Chapter 12 Cases Study
Too Much Stress? You Decide
HRM 335
Western International University
June21, 2011 Too Much Stress? You Decide
1. When conflicting medical opinions are presented, should the advice of a medical expert count more heavily than the opinion of the general physician? Explain. The conflicting medical opinions is that one of these doctors is an expert at treating depression and the other one is a biased doctor “company” doctor. The medical advice they were relying on was only from a doctor that was that of a “fair and impartial”, but not an expert.
2. Is the charge of discrimination presented by Donald’s lawyer relevant to the case? Explain. Yes, the case is relevant because Donald’s treating decision is from an “expert” and he was being denied his prior position back because the decision of a “company” doctor. There should have been regulations in place to help the employees who were being overwhelmed with the stress at the job. The discrimination is there because the company is relying on an opinion of an impartial doctor and no that of an “expert.”
3. If you were presented with this case, what decision would you reach? Explain. I believe that the opinion of a treating physician who works for the company should not be used as a basis for their decision. This doctor had only seen Donald twice, once before he was granted leave and another time when he was trying to return to work. I believe his medical doctor, who is also an expert in this case had been treating him throughout the eight months he was on medical leave. The opinion of his personal doctor should have been relied upon because of his expertise. Donald, never having felt better is because of the medical treatment he received from his own physician who again, is an expert at treating
Too Much Stress? You Decide
HRM 335
Western International University
June21, 2011 Too Much Stress? You Decide
1. When conflicting medical opinions are presented, should the advice of a medical expert count more heavily than the opinion of the general physician? Explain. The conflicting medical opinions is that one of these doctors is an expert at treating depression and the other one is a biased doctor “company” doctor. The medical advice they were relying on was only from a doctor that was that of a “fair and impartial”, but not an expert.
2. Is the charge of discrimination presented by Donald’s lawyer relevant to the case? Explain. Yes, the case is relevant because Donald’s treating decision is from an “expert” and he was being denied his prior position back because the decision of a “company” doctor. There should have been regulations in place to help the employees who were being overwhelmed with the stress at the job. The discrimination is there because the company is relying on an opinion of an impartial doctor and no that of an “expert.”
3. If you were presented with this case, what decision would you reach? Explain. I believe that the opinion of a treating physician who works for the company should not be used as a basis for their decision. This doctor had only seen Donald twice, once before he was granted leave and another time when he was trying to return to work. I believe his medical doctor, who is also an expert in this case had been treating him throughout the eight months he was on medical leave. The opinion of his personal doctor should have been relied upon because of his expertise. Donald, never having felt better is because of the medical treatment he received from his own physician who again, is an expert at treating