Real 'BIG' news WTS sued biggie worker compensation

by DannyHaszard 210 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  West70

  Eduardo:
  
  You state:
  
  "My point is that NY law exempts religious orders. the WTS is a relgious order for purposes of the WC law."
  
  This is where you are wrong.
  
  NY Law does NOT exempt religious orders.
  
  NY WC Law exempts MEMBERS of religious orders.
  
  If a NY Religious Order hires an "employee" to do some work for it, then the RO better have WC Insurance.
  
  NOW, who do you think determines who is a "member" of a RO for WC purposes?
  
  The RO?
  
  I don't think so.
  
  The WC Board via the WCL Judge determines who qualifies as a "member" of the RO, and who qualifies as an "employee" of the RO -- FOR WC PURPOSES.
  
  Thus, this is WHY this Judge looked at Brenda Upton's STATUS, rather than the status of the WBTS.
  
  This Judge decided that irregardless of the paperwork Upton signed with the WBTS that her JOB STATUS made her an EMPLOYEE UNDER WC LAW.
  
  What we don't know is all the specifics of such, and how they might impact other claims from other claimants.
• 

  Sunspot

  Thanks Eduardo, for your reply. I still have more questions though (sorry)...

  ***even when the claim is "disputed" (that is the usual term). I think that the cash award is held up, or if a lump-sum payment was made by the Insurance Carrier, during the review/appeal process at the Insurance Carrier's option but I could be wrong about that.

  Does the term "a claim disputed" mean the same as a judge's decision? I'm not being facetious here...but I really don't understand. To me, something disputed would be at a stage where there were presented arguements. When a judge (I think?) renders a decision, isn't the "arguing" over? (I watch Judges Milian and Judy, which may account for my being in the dark on these issues! LOL)

  ***I think this won't be held up by the panel, and if it is for some reason, that it won't hold up in Superior Court. If it is, I am not really sure whether the Society would invest the resources to push the issue further in the courts due to publicity and simply cost.

  Would you explain "panel"...or who is on this panel? Is it like a jury, or similar to a Grand Jury determination, in that "another trial" would then follow? Can this panel over-ride what a judge has already called down?

  Thanks for clearing these things up....I find this fascinating and not because of the parties involved but because of the intracacies within the Judicial System itself!

  Annie
• 

  Curious Mind

  AuldSoul

  It would always be more difficult to get a ruling overturned than to win the judgement in your favor on the first attempt, because (1) doing so requires acquiring the right to appeal, and once acquired (2) requires arguing the point of appeal so successfully that the standing judgement is overturned.

  Whereas, in the initial hearing all that would be required is to get the Judge to side in favor of your argument in the case at hand.

  See you did understood what I said - Yay. And don't forget that Judges don't really like to contradict each other, so it really is an uphill battle. Often it's better to appeal not just on your objections but also by introducing new evidence that is very compelling (although you have to prove this - and in the USA DNA results have been ruled NOT to be compelling enough for an appeal). So, compelling evidence is also a very hard argument to get an appeal. Clearly getting an appeal is the hardest part and you can be sure that a lawyer preparing for an appeal works a damn site harder than a lawyer preparing for first argument. It's also worth noting that in an appeal you can not rehash your original argument ... SO yep appeal is hard, damn hard - winning it is harder. With the first decision (you are dead right) you only need to convince the Judge of what you are proposing is absolutely correct - it's easier to convince a single Judge. Finally a note on appeals, they aren't usually heard by a single Judge (depends on your court), however a simple rule is the higher the court and the number of appeals then the higer the number of Judges on the bench to hear it. Convincing upto 7 experienced legal minds wouldn't be an easy feat...

  CM

  Sorry I didnt reply earlier - I went to bed. Its mid sunday morning here ...
• 

  skeeter1

  Topic #1 Eduardo wrote: “Skeeter, just as an aside can you please tell us whether you are female or male?” Eduardo later wrote “Skeeter: didn't quite answer my question did ye?”
  My answer: Eduardo, you are hell bent on trying to figure out if I am a male or a female! I do not see why that matters. I've not asked you for a date, have I? But, if you are looking for a female date, I must disappoint you. What happened to your girlfriend that gave you that great bj. Did she get food poisoning? Was she an independent contractor or an employee or an unpaid volunteer? Did she file a workchick's compensation claim when you two split up? Ok, I'll stop...but I am having some amusing fun writing this...

  In any event, your question about my genetilia inside my boxers (or panties) has nothing to do with the current discussion or the merit of my arguments. So, let's keep gender out of this...lest you want to look like a moron to the rest of JWD.
  Topic #2 Skeeter1 wrote: “But, this is all conjecture until we see the final ruling or the transcripts, if those are even available in this case.”
  Eduardo later wrote: Again you misunderstand, by the way are you reading the actual transcript or just going off what is reported and your knowledge of law. I haven't read the actual transcript so I am just doing the latter also. Again you misunderstand, by the way are you reading the actual transcript or just going off what is reported and your knowledge of law. I haven't read the actual transcript so I am just doing the latter also.
  My answer: Eduardo, I am glad you agree with me. None of us have read the judge’s opinion.
  

  Topic #3 Skeeter1 wrote: "When you read a judge's opinion, you are likely reading alot of what the winning side argued as well as, occasionally, a refuting of the losing argument. So, the statement that Ms. Upton was a secular worker probably means that the judge looked at the other side.”
  Eduardo later wrote "The fundamental question is whether the religious org, the WTS, is subject to WC requirements or exempt from them. To answer that question, which is the first question that must be answered, the status or activity of the workers is immaterial.”
  West70 said it best (and I concur) “The Witnesses vowed to appeal the ruling, saying Upton and the other 5,800 Witnesses who live and work in the church's sounds to me as if 's "status" as an employee was the basis of this Judge's ruling”
  

  Topic #4 (need a Bethelite here to help) It’s my understanding (and I am speaking without any personal knowledge) that Bethelites take a vow of poverty?, and accept minimal compensation, if any?. They do get living quarters and food, and depending on their job status, these “perks” (i.e. their apartment) can be nicer than the other drones.

  In my personal opinion, the Society would not be far fetched in arguing that these Bethelites are volunteers, based on their vow of poverty. Likewise, this NY judge is not far fetched at saying that Bethelites are actual employees. We all “work” for the mortgage companies, the grocery store, and the children’s shoe stores . If my “boss” was to pay my expenses directly and give me my $20/week stipend, I really would not care. I “get” $20/week either way. Gerard posted: “definition of Volunteers as Employees for the purpose of Workers’ Compensation Coverage. Volunteer – Any non-compensated natural person while that person is subject to your (church) direction and control while performing essential employment functions/duties otherwise performed by paid staff or regular employees.”
  

  Here, the status of the worker’s is the issue for appeal (are they religious volunteers who took a vow of poverty similar to a monk? Or are they paid workers who write & print magazines and get an apartment/food/living expenses if they do a “good” job?)
  

  The Society’s lawyers are going to argue that they were religious workers. The Society could win, they could lose on appeal.

  
  But, the point here is that Ms. Upton WON at this level. Let us celebrate. Her “win” is another straw in the camel’s back. I salute Ms. Upton. But, I’m sure she’d rather be healthy than have to deal with the Society. In any event, I do not think that $400/week is enough.
  
  skeeter1 (that's for Eduardo!)
• 

  skeeter1
• 

  garybuss

  Here in Dakota, work comp protects the company, not the worker. Work comp limits for claims are pre set and a worker under work comp laws can not sue their employer. They can sue the manufacturer of the machine that hurt them but not their employer. I sold my business in 1992 so maybe those laws changed.
  When I was in business, we'd much rather an employee was covered under work comp laws. If an employee wanted to work on a personal project in my shops we would have then punch in and we'd pay them and have them reimburse us for their payroll costs so they were covered under work comp if they got hurt.
  Maybe the Society has employees sign an indemnification clause before they start work. If they did, then maybe willful negligence would be the issue left to settle.
  I'd think the issue raised by the employer / employee relationship would have more and deeper consequences than work comp insurance. It's be my guess that the Watch Tower has deeper pockets than most any insurance company that might accept premiums from them. I understand they self insure on employee medical care and that'd be a much bigger exposure than work comp insurance.
• 

  blondie

  Seeing that the Uptons are chiropractors, I can understand why they were more likely to be successful in a workers' compensation claim. Many chiropractors are involved in case after case of workers comp in providing treatment and assessing the extent of the injury and whether they can bring the person back to good health or if it is a permanent situation. I'm sure they were very familiar with the process in their state and the legal requirements. They probably also knew who the lawyers were that specialized in workers compensation and who were especially skilled.

  Blondie
• 

  belbab

  Edouardo, you said:

  My point is that NY law exempts religious orders. the WTS is a relgious order for purposes of the WC law. Thus it has had, until this decision, every reason and expectation not to establish WC

  I may be getting away over my head here, but nevertheless.....

  If I understand right, you are aguing that, the WT assumed that because they were a recognized religion they are not required to pay WC premiums. So now a judge decides they should pay "employees" claims of injury. So all they have to do now is say "Sorry, we did't know, OK we'll correct the situation."

  The WT gets new employees monks to sign poverty wows and claims all workers, manual, cleaners, chiropractors etc. are all religious worshipers in their religious order. They spend all their time down on their knees praying to Jehovah, devoting themselves meditations, and religious teachings. Is that it?

  Just as the WT has been forced to change their restaurant/cafeteria business at conventions because of sales tax issues,

  Just as they have changed charging prices for their literature, and subterfugely, claiming that it is supported by voluntary contributions'

  So too, they have claimed exemption from paying WC premiums, for all manual workers, making it appear that all 5800 bethel grunts are housed in Brooklyn for devotional purposes only.

  The judge saw through their machinations, I hope the rest of the world, especially their rank and file do also.

  belbab

  belbab
• 

  david_10

  
  
  

  
  Hello again! May I jump back into the fray and stir things up again?

  West you said: " Legal certainly did NOT pick this fight. IMO, having a Bethelite going in front of a NY State WCL Judge was probably their "worst nightmare".

  That is very true: This is not something the Society wanted, and they certainly didn't pick this battle. But they could've stopped it. If they were really scared and thought that this situation had far-reaching implications, all they had to do was settle. And if settling meant paying the $400 a week, I think they would've done it rather than take a chance on paying millions for claims going back 30 or 40 years. But they don't appear to be very worried. A worst case scenario for them, it appears to me, is that they eventually go to court, lose their appeals and have to pay the Uptons and start making WC payments. It's not that big of a deal.

  Thank you for your comments, Observador: " David, this is a discussion board, where people express a host of different sentiments." I appreciate your thoughts. Your posts are always very intelligent and I always appreciate what you have to say. I thought, however, that I have been discussing this. From what I can tell, I'm the only poster who has really done an about-face and changed my views on the subject, and I've done it through reading and discussing. I started out with a euphoric high, thinking the Society is doomed, and I've wound up being disappointed and realizing that the Society is really just carrying on business as usual.

  I hear what you're saying, though: HOPE is a very good thing. But Hope doesn't get you very far in a courtroom. After all, what do we really have to base all this Hope on? We have an article from a tabloid rag that is not especially known for it's credibility. We have desperate statements made by a Watchtower lawyer that, when you examine them, don't sound like statements that any lawyer in his right mind would ever make. Especially a Watchtower lawyer. And it's odd that no one appears to have heard of this lawyer and that he doesn't appear to turn up on any searches. The whole thing is beginning to not pass the ol' sniff test.

  I confess that I know very little about the Law. I think that the vast majority of posters on this board don't know much more than I do. We all think that the Law is fair and logical and is a search for justice. In reality, the Law is cold and impersonal and sometimes doesn't make a lot of sense. And this is what I have come to appreciate about Eduardo over the past few months: he tells like it is. He will take the available facts and put them under the bright light and start poking holes and questioning everything. And that's what I want. I don't want someone to sugarcoat it and blow smoke up my ass and tell me what I want to hear. I want to know the the truth, whatever it is. Granted, Eduardo can get a little snide--------------------(Eduardo, are you listening? Lose the snide. We're all on the same side here and no one is on the witness stand being cross-examined.) But that being said, Eduardo is doing exactly what a lawyer is trained to do with any witness on the stand: He'll let you make your statement, and then sharpen his machete and rip you a new one. So I don't believe that offense is intended. (In any case, Eduardo, you could lose the snide and most of us wouldn't miss it a bit.)

  Personally, I hope that the Watchtower goes out with a bang. I hope that ex-Bethel workers who caught their hand in a press back in 1970, or even got a bad sunburn working on the farm----------------------I hope they all can sue and get millions. But I just don't thnk it's going to happen. At the worst, the Society will have to start paying WC premiums, and it won't kill them. I hate to have to say this, but I think we've made a mountain out of a mole hill, and we're going to be disappointed when this thing eventually plays itself out.

  David
• 

  zagor

  
  This is a kick ass case, lol

  "Our problem all along has been medical-legal. We are still active Jehovah's Witnesses."

  Can you imagine how they are treated now in their local congregation