Rank: Forum user
|
I have recently investigated an accident which turned out not to be has the employee described it, the employee stated on the investigation report that he was wearing is company issue safety glasses when the accident happened and that the glasses where the cause for not being wrap around glasses.
I watched countless hours of CCTV and actually found out that the employee did not wear is safety glasses at all on the day in question and was in fact grinding metal straps with no safety glasses on.
I asked the employee if there was anything else he was doing on that day that could have caused the injury other than the scenario he described and the answers was "no" the employee has now resigned his post and put a claim in against the company.
Has anyone else dealt with bogus claims and can offer me advice on how to now approach this?
Advice please
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
LATCHY wrote:I have recently investigated an accident which turned out not to be has the employee described it, the employee stated on the investigation report that he was wearing is company issue safety glasses when the accident happened and that the glasses where the cause for not being wrap around glasses.
I watched countless hours of CCTV and actually found out that the employee did not wear is safety glasses at all on the day in question and was in fact grinding metal straps with no safety glasses on.
I asked the employee if there was anything else he was doing on that day that could have caused the injury other than the scenario he described and the answers was "no" the employee has now resigned his post and put a claim in against the company.
Has anyone else dealt with bogus claims and can offer me advice on how to now approach this?
Advice please
Just give all details to your insurer, they will deal with this.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
At the end of the day, it is your insurer's decision on how to handle this.
Whilst the IP appears to have been the author of his own misfortune, it does not mean that a claim against the company will fail.
A lot is going to hinge on the level of supervision on the shop floor and the training the IP received over use of PPE.
Certainly appears to be a high level of contributory negligence but what were your supervisors doing about it?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Oh and the clock is ticking.
The insurer has to acnowledge letter of claim within 24 hours, investigate within 30 working days. If you meet these deadlines (and some relating to size of claim), the claimant costs are limited to £1500.
Fail to acknowledge within 24 hours and the costs will easily quadruple
Don't delay - tell them today.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Just to clarify further, it was the manager of the garage area that has brought this claim, so surely a time served, competent mechanic should understand PPE the use of and what must be worn when undertaking certain tasks.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
That will certainly strengthen the insurer's defence to the claim, but still one for them to deal with.
You could also consider taking disciplinary action against the employee. Without getting into the whys and wherefores of the civil claim for damages, you can conduct your own investigation.
Take statements, review the evidence, training records and the like. Look towards giving the employee a formal written warning for failure to use provided PPE and follow safe procedures if the evidence backs this up.
I see no reason to go for a softly softly approach given his experience, training and position within the organisation. Also a useful opportunity to remind him of his duties towards staff below him, e.g. setting a positive example.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I succesfully defended a claim against a former employee, with the help of facebook.
It is suprising what some people put on their accounts, especialy when putting in a personal injury claim for a back injury.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Had an issue a few years ago where the warehouse supervisor put a claim in for hearing loss.
The manufacturing process was noisy, with PPE mandatory and audiometry testing for all employees every 2 years.
He had 20 years service and employment records showed he had always worked in the warehouse which was not noisy. The audiometry tests did show a loss of hearing over time.
The claim was challenged based on a false application, as in the claim he had stated he didn't have any noisy past times, however a previous claim made a few years earlier for a bad back claimed that the injury stopped him from taking part in his hobby of clay pigeon shooting, which the insurers still had on file.
He had made the claim through the unions solicitors and the insurers successfully recovered costs incurred from the union as a result of the false claim.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.