The News You Need for Feb. 4
Hard truths, monkey attacks, and Louisiana exclusivity
Speaking Hard Truths in Workers’ Compensation?
Leadership in workers' compensation often drives compliance, enhances process efficiency, and improves operational outcomes. Authentic leadership revolves around people. This type of leadership involves creating an environment where trust, transparency, and growth can thrive, even during difficult conversations. Speaking hard truths, though uncomfortable, is a crucial aspect of effective leadership. In workers' compensation, where emotions can run high and stakes are personal, addressing these challenging moments can significantly improve outcomes for individuals and organizations.??
The Role of Hard Truths in Workers’ Compensation?
Workers' compensation relies on a delicate balance of compliance and communication. At the core of the workers’ compensation system are injured workers navigating unexpected disruptions in their lives. There are also employers working to maintain operations, and adjusters tasked with connecting the dots. In this high-pressure environment, the temptation to avoid difficult conversations is understandable and ultimately counterproductive. Speaking hard truths requires addressing gaps and challenging assumptions toward better outcomes with honesty and empathy.?
Imagine an injured worker who expresses resistance to participating in a return-to-work program. It would be easy to avoid the discomfort of addressing their concerns head-on. But doing so fails the worker and the organization. A thoughtful conversation can help the employee understand the RTW program's purpose and how it aligns with their recovery and well-being. Speaking hard truths in this context becomes an act of care as it provides clarity, reinforces the organization's commitment to its employees, and showcases the path to a successful return. These moments are about creating clarity and connection versus assigning blame or causing discomfort. Leaders demonstrate respect for those involved by addressing issues directly, enabling a path forward rooted in trust and collaboration.?
Why We Avoid Hard Truths?
Avoiding hard truths is human nature. For centuries, survival depended on maintaining group harmony, making us instinctively wary of conflict. In workers' compensation, this avoidance often manifests in hesitancy to have difficult conversations with injured workers, supervisors, or claims partners. Leaders fear that their words may damage relationships or lead to defensive reactions. This fear, while valid, can lead to missed opportunities for growth, improvement, and resolution.?
Consider a situation where an adjuster struggles with inefficiencies in communication with a medical provider. Avoiding the issue may maintain surface-level harmony, and it allows delays or frustrations to fester. Addressing the problem with respect and clarity can lead to solutions that benefit both parties. The provider gains insight into expectations, and the adjuster facilitates faster, more effective care for injured workers. Ultimately, avoiding difficult conversations can create a more significant burden. Misunderstandings linger, trust erodes, and issues compound. In workers' compensation, where trust is paramount, avoiding hard truths risks undermining the foundations of a successful program.?
Navigating Difficult Conversations with Empathy?
The key to delivering hard truths lies in empathy. When handled with care and respect, difficult conversations strengthen rather than weaken relationships. Leaders invest in the individual's success and the process. For example, when addressing a denied claim, the focus should be on transparency and support. A leader might explain why the claim was not compensable and offer actionable steps to help the injured worker access alternative resources. This approach acknowledges the worker's frustration while demonstrating a commitment to their well-being.?
Empathy also involves active listening. It's not enough to deliver a message and move on; effective leaders create space for dialogue. By listening to the concerns of injured workers, employers, and other stakeholders, we build trust and create a space for awareness. These moments are opportunities to validate emotions, clarify misunderstandings, and strengthen relationships through understanding. Empathetic leadership emphasizes delivering the truth in a way that prioritizes respect and mutual understanding, not softening facts. This approach transforms difficult conversations into opportunities for growth and collaboration.?
Transforming the System Through Transparency?
Transparency is the foundation of effective communication in workers' compensation. Transparent leaders build credibility and foster a culture of trust. For injured workers, understanding the "why" behind decisions—such as denying a claim or implementing a recovery plan—helps them feel valued and respected. Without transparency, uncertainty takes root, eroding confidence in the system and its processes.?
Consider an employer navigating communication with an injured worker about modified duty options. Rather than presenting these options as non-negotiable, framing the conversation as a collaboration can make all the difference. Explaining the rationale behind the choices and inviting the worker to share their perspective fosters mutual respect. Transparency in these moments ensures that workers feel seen and heard, even if the final decision may not align entirely with their preferences. Transparency also extends to internal operations. Organizations create alignment and accountability by clearly communicating expectations and goals with claims teams and stakeholders. This clarity strengthens relationships and ensures that every decision reflects shared values and objectives.?
Preparing for Hard Truths?
Preparation is essential for effectively delivering hard truths. It starts with understanding the situation thoroughly—knowing the facts, anticipating concerns, and identifying potential solutions. Leaders who prepare demonstrate thoughtfulness and respect for those involved. This preparation also builds confidence, enabling leaders to approach conversations with clarity and composure.?
?Scenario planning is a valuable tool in this process. Leaders can navigate conversations more effectively by envisioning potential reactions and preparing thoughtful responses. For example, when discussing a denied claim with an injured worker, consider how they might respond emotionally and prepare ways to acknowledge their feelings while reinforcing key points. This preparation ensures that the conversation remains productive and focused.?
?Preparation also involves practicing the delivery of hard truths. Speaking the words aloud, whether to a colleague or in private, allows leaders to refine their message and approach. This practice minimizes the risk of miscommunication and ensures that the conversation reflects empathy, clarity, and professionalism.?
Building a Culture of Truth and Care?
When organizations embrace hard truths as opportunities for growth, they create a culture of care and accountability. Workers' compensation becomes more than a transactional process—it reflects the organization's values and commitment to its people. This culture starts with leadership. Leaders who model transparency and empathy set the tone for the entire organization. When injured workers see their concerns addressed with respect and sincerity, they're more likely to engage positively in recovery. Employers who foster open dialogue and accountability create stronger, more resilient teams. A culture of truth also encourages continuous improvement. By addressing gaps and challenges directly, organizations can refine their processes, enhance communication, and strengthen outcomes. This commitment to growth ensures that workers’ compensation remains a dynamic, adaptive system that prioritizes the well-being of all stakeholders.?
Courage and Compassion in Leadership?
Speaking hard truths requires courage rooted in care. In workers’ compensation, these conversations are opportunities to advocate for injured workers, support employers, and strengthen the system as a whole. When leaders approach these moments with empathy, transparency, and preparation, they cultivate an environment where trust and collaboration thrive. By leaning into difficult conversations, we pave the way for a brighter, more compassionate future in workers’ compensation.?
Could Burned Coal Plant Worker who Received WC Benefits also Sue Company in Tort?
Chris Parker
What Do You Think?
There is an exception to the exclusivity provision of Louisiana’s workers’ compensation statute. Under that exception, claimants are not limited to workers’ compensation benefits, but can also sue in tort, if they show that the employer acted intentionally.
In one recent case, the claimant, Robert Remedies, worked in the control room of a plant that processes coal. The company utilized dust collectors as part of the process. One of the collectors had been exhibiting high levels of carbon monoxide.
An instrumentation technician inspected the collector and removed the carbon monoxide monitor. He told the person in charge of the control room that the collector was showing a high level of carbon monoxide. The person in charge of the control room failed to tell the claimant’s supervisor, who sent the employee to open the collector and clean it. When he did so, fire spewed out, injuring him.
The claimant received workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries and then sought to sue the company in tort. He claimed the company essentially acted intentionally because it knew the fire would occur.
In Louisiana, an intentional act requires either of the following:
Was Remedies entitled to the additional remedy?
A.?Yes. Multiple people at the company knew about the problem and failed to alert the supervisor.
B. No.?His supervisor didn’t know that the dust collector lacked a carbon monoxide monitor when he sent him to open it.
If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Remedies v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 23-454 (W.D. La. 01/27/25), which held that the claimant failed to show that the employer acted intentionally.
The claimant had to show that his supervisor who sent him to open the collector did so knowing the fire was substantially certain to follow. However, there was no evidence that the supervisor knew the machine lacked a carbon monoxide monitor.?
The supervisor even checked the control room board before sending the claimant to clean the dust collector. The board displayed a zero reading, which he believed was accurate.
“Therefore, when [the supervisor] sent Remedies to the dust collector, he did not know that the dust collector presented a danger,” the court wrote.
Therefore, the company did not have the intent necessary for the claimant’s tort claim to fall under an exception to the workers' compensation act's exclusivity provision. In short, the claimant's only legal remedy was workers’ compensation benefits.
Employee Attacked in Drive-Thru by Monkey
Mobile, AL (WorkersCompensation.com) – A Starbucks worker is recovering this week after being attacked by a monkey in the drive-thru.
Officials said the pet monkey was riding in a car with its owner when the owner stopped at the Mobile, Ala. Starbucks on Jan. 10. Somehow the monkey got free and escaped the car through the open window.
“The monkey then leapt from the vehicle through the window of the business, and attacked an employee,” police said.
Coworkers rushed to the employee’s side and pulled the monkey off of them.
“The monkey then re-entered the customer’s vehicle before the customer drove away,” police said. “The owner of the animal could face charges. This remains an active Animal Services investigation.”
Health officials in Mobile County said the animal has been identified as an Aotus monkey, otherwise known as a Noisy Night Monkey. The monkeys are considered nocturnal monkeys and are native to Central and South America. It wasn’t clear from the media reports whether the attack happened in the morning or in the night, and how the monkey’s mood and behavior would have been affected.
According to HR Dive, protecting employees from monkey attacks isn’t something even Starbucks tends to take into consideration.
“While Starbucks no doubt takes worker safety seriously and has rigorous training and guidelines in place, monkey attacks may be an eventuality it quite reasonably hadn’t considered,” the publication said. “HR departments typically focus on mitigating common workplace hazards, but the incident shows that certain risks fall outside conventional safety planning and thinking.
The employee wasn’t not reportedly hurt in the incident, but HR Dive said had the employee been bitten, it would have been a much more complex situation.
“HR teams would then need to coordinate medical treatment, assess the workplace's risk exposure, and evaluate whether additional safety measures, and although on the spot monkey passenger checks may be difficult to enforce, they would help prevent similar occurrences in the future,” the magazine said.
It’s not the first primate attack on an employee in the past year.
In late October of last year, a worker at the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden was attacked by a chimp during feeding time. Authorities with the zoo said the worker lost part of his thumb when the bonobo bit him.
According to the zoo, the worker was making routine rounds in the Jungle Trails habitat on Friday, giving the animals food and medicine. The bonobo allegedly bit the worker through the mesh barrier, resulting in a “partial amputation,” officials said.
“The Cincinnati Zoo prioritizes the safety of its employees and animals,” the zoo said in a statement. “Bonobos are highly intelligent and social primates, and interactions with them involve established protocols and safety procedures. At no time were the bonobos outside their habitat and per zoo policy, animal care staff and great apes do not occupy shared spaces.”
Zoo officials said they would be reviewing the details of the incident to determine what precipitated the attack.
The most recent attack on an employee by a monkey before that was in 2018.
That year, a pet spider monkey allegedly attacked two Home Depot employees in Okeechobee, Florida.
Police said in May the monkey, named “Spanky,” jumped out of a shopping cart and grabbed one Home Depot cashiers shirt, leaving red marks on her shoulder. And a month later, another Home Depot employee at a different store, claimed she was attacked by the monkey after she noticed him roaming the store’s parking lot with a leash on.
Officials said Spanky had escaped the truck it had been left in while the owner was shopping inside the store. The employee grabbed the monkey by the leash and tried to take it inside to find the owner, but the monkey was spooked by the sliding glass doors and jumped on the employee and bit her arm. When the monkey jumped off of the employee, she followed, and tried to contain it. The employee suffered several scratches and bites to her face and body as a result.
The monkey’s owner, Tina Ballard, was arrested and charged with allowing a wild animal to escape, among other charges.