Force or suggest?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ptonsparky

ptonsparky

Tom
Location
NE (9.06 miles @5.9 Degrees from Winged Horses)
Occupation
EC - retired
One of my help managed to poke a hole in his hand. Snagged it on a piece of baling wire. My office help told him to go to the Dr when she saw his hand the next morning. He declined. Worked all day. Dr visit a necessity the following day. His wife stepped in and pulled rank.

Do we force them to go or suggest?
 
You can't make him legally go to the doctor, but suggest that he do. I see this crap all the time. Guy cuts his hand, refuses medical attention, then few days later it gets infected. Now we have an employee who is out of work for a few days per doctors orders, or on restricted duty. It's not good for anyone involved.

Also, if you have more then 10 employees, you need to annotate the injury on your OSHA 300 log.
 
Did the injury happen at his job? If so I think you should have the right to have it checked, further complications could be your problem.

If not at work and work causes further complications it could still be your problem, which could still be worth you at least paying for the initial Dr. visit, if that is the employee's concern.
 
I could be wrong here, But my belief is you can make him go to the Dr. He is an employee of yours, on the clock, and as such should obey what are essentially orders as long as you don't make him go on his own time. Think about this, Can't you be fired for insubordination? If I work for you and you tell me to go up in the attic and run wire, as long as my life isn't in jeopardy, it isn't illegal or immoral, then my job is to do it, whether I like it or not. If I injure myself on your job, on your time, you telling me to go to the Dr. is a direct order and is a paid duty. all this is my opinion of course :)
 
I would think that if, by force you mean "make a doctor visit a condition of his continued employment" then I believe you may do that. That makes it pretty easy for him to make a decision, especially if he has any sense at all. If he chooses to no longer be employed than you probably don't want him anyway.

Unfortunately, I doubt that makes you any less responsible to pay for the injury.
 
Simple, just have the employee sign a "refusal to seek medical treatment form." Some states its illegal to terminate a employee for them refusing to seek medical attention.
 
Hate to bring the topic of religon into play, but is he Christian Scienenist they will refuse

medical care. Jevohah Witness refuse blood transfusions. These two conditions are deeply

rooted in their faith.
 
John120/240 said:
Hate to bring the topic of religon into play, but is he Christian Scienenist they will refuse

medical care. Jevohah Witness refuse blood transfusions. These two conditions are deeply

rooted in their faith.
Click to expand...

His wife made him go to the hospital, so I don't see how any of that comes into play?
 
If an accident like this happened on any job that I've ever been employed on, management would insist on a Doctors visit and a drug test!
It's as simple as anything that looks like stitches are required and of course any severe gash or punctures.

Most all large EC's (locally) supply gloves as part of their PPE program and require their constant usuage.

The gloves that I presently have are rated for CAT II.
 
Hv&Lv said:
I could be wrong here, But my belief is you can make him go to the Dr. He is an employee of yours, on the clock, and as such should obey what are essentially orders as long as you don't make him go on his own time. Think about this, Can't you be fired for insubordination? If I work for you and you tell me to go up in the attic and run wire, as long as my life isn't in jeopardy, it isn't illegal or immoral, then my job is to do it, whether I like it or not. If I injure myself on your job, on your time, you telling me to go to the Dr. is a direct order and is a paid duty. all this is my opinion of course :)
Click to expand...

Consider this, if the employee is a person that does not use doctors do you really think an employer can force the person to ignore their beliefs.
 
iwire said:
Consider this, if the employee is a person that does not use doctors do you really think an employer can force the person to ignore their beliefs.
Click to expand...

You mean a Christian Scientist? His wife took him according to earlier post. You have a point about violating religious beliefs. I forgot about that one.
Question: What if the employee refuses to go to the Dr. for the minor hand injury, Sepsis or Tetanus sets in, the employee dies 2 months later at home. I wonder how the workmans comp. claim will be filled out? Does the insurance company now owe death benefits because of religious beliefs? :huh:
 
Hv&Lv said:
You mean a Christian Scientist? His wife took him according to earlier post. You have a point about violating religious beliefs. I forgot about that one.
Question: What if the employee refuses to go to the Dr. for the minor hand injury, Sepsis or Tetanus sets in, the employee dies 2 months later at home. I wonder how the workmans comp. claim will be filled out? Does the insurance company now owe death benefits because of religious beliefs? :huh:
Click to expand...

I was about to post something along that line.

I "poked a hole" in my hand a few years ago. Did see doctor right away, it did develop an infection a couple days later and they hospitalized me to give me a strong dose of antibiotics via IV, they told me they did not want to end up losing my hand (I did not really want that either). Where does the employers concern for the well being end and the employees wishes overlap? When, or does the employee give up some of the workers compensation benefits if he refuses treatment for an injury that happens at work? The employer purchases workers compensation for accidents like this as well as the more obvious severe accidents.

Same goes for electric shock. There have been cases where people have had a pretty severe shock, somehow got out of it and thought they were fine only to later have complications and even die from those complications.
 
Last edited:
Step back a moment and ask yourself: Are you a free man or a piece of property owned by someone else?

"Force" someone? Since when did that become your right- let alone responsibility? I seem to recall hearing of a mild disagreement over this topic, somewhere around 1860.

Liability? There's never any shortage of folks trying to assert all manner of creative theories. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. (Perhaps I should replace 'damned' with 'sued.')

Reality check: You can't bring the world to a standstill for every little 'owie.' No one is in a better position to judge than the person with their own hands in the pie -or machine, as the case may be.

Regarding the 'sanctity' of the medical practice ... as time goes by I have less faith in that field, and become more conscious of their limitations. Good heavens, I've seen folks go to the emergency room with blood flowing out- and be 'diagnosed' with a sleep disorder.

Not to mention that there are those with religious concerns. As things are developing, privacy concerns become more of an issue. Govenrments intrude; many times the slightest injury leads to a mandatory drug test - and I cannot accept that ANY test is 100% accurate. Just what you need - the suspicion that WILL follow a 'fail' ... even if the test is not confirmed.

It's a funny thing, liability. Some will argue that I do not have this right or that .... that I lack the competency to make treatment decisions, etc., .... yet they all manage to assert that I am absolutely required to give them complete access to all my resources, now and forever, as their 'professional judgement' dictates.
 
iwire said:
I just don't see an employer having a right to require an employee to submit to a doctor unless it was spelled out in a contract the employee agreed to.
Click to expand...

An employer has the right to judge whether an employee is "fit to work". The employer cannot force the employee to undergo treatment but they can require they obtain a medical opinion before returning to work.

renosteinke said:
Step back a moment and ask yourself: Are you a free man or a piece of property owned by someone else?
"Force" someone? Since when did that become your right- let alone responsibility?
Click to expand...

Liability by an employer generally occurs when they ignore a situation where they "knew or should have known" of a hazard or injury. It becomes the employer's responsibility to dismiss the employee from work when an injury is apparent. And it's the employer's responsibility to refuse a return to work until the condition is remedied. Contract rights and Legal rights determine who pays for the lost time.

Having some but not total "responsibility" for an employee's health is inherent in hiring them. "Force" is applied to the condition of the privilege to continue to work for that employer. You are "free" not to seek medical care. He is "free" not to employ you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top