May 13, 2007
Donald Coit Smith, his grief fresh and raw, believes that Texas insurance companies profited after his 22-year-old son was electrocuted in an industrial accident in Bryan — all because of state laws that regulate the payment of death benefits through workers' compensation.For his loss, Smith got $6,000 to bury his son. But Smith was told that the workers' comp death benefit — $100,500 — would not be paid to grieving family members because his oldest child, Donald W. Smith, a student at Sam Houston State University, had no wife or children.
Instead, the money, paid by his employer's insurance company, went to a state workers' comp fund in a case that shows just what happens in Texas when mostly young, unmarried or childless workers die in workplace accidents.
More than $17 million in workers' compensation benefits bypassed the relatives of as many as 140 dead workers from 2003 to 2006. All of that money ended up in a workers' comp fund where $10 million was then funneled back to insurance companies, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of state data.
Coit Smith, who has 20 years of experience as an industrial safety specialist, calls the payments "blood money."
"I feel it's immoral, what they did with that money," Smith said.
About 450 people are killed in workplace accidents in Texas each year. Yet many families of dead workers collect nothing. That's because historically, workers' compensation benefits have been reserved only for those who depended on those wages to live.
Death benefits are typically paid only to spouses and children younger than 18. Spouses who remarry and children who come of age lose the benefits. Parents and older children also are denied unless they were financially dependent on the worker killed, according to state law.
When no family members qualify, the lump-sum death benefit, often more than $100,000 per worker, goes to the state Division of Workers' Compensation and into the so-called "Subsequent Injury Fund."
The fund was meant to provide a safety net for workers who needed extra help after suffering multiple injuries on the job. But because of changes in the law in 1991, most of that money now goes back to insurance companies who underwrite workers' compensation.
Words fail me. Families of workers killed in workplace injuries deserve to be compensated -- and that they are not is incredibly offensive on a basic moral level.
Posted by: Greg at
02:57 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.
6 Jun 07
In communication with Rep. Solomon's office, I was informed that HB724 listed a 104 week death benefit payment to parents of dependent children killed on the job when the deceased left no dependents of their own. The "normal" death benefit payment for deceased workers is 364 weeks. I asked where the other 260 weeks of payment went. The response was the carrier did NOT pay the SIF the rest of the benefits under HB724. While the parents of these deceased workers do get a portion of the death benefits, it seems the carriers (insurance companies) now get a reprieve of 260 weeks of payments! That's about 70% less than what they would have had to pay! (Of course, they could have elected lump sum payment which is about 20% less to start...) So now is it to their advantage to have unmarried/childless dependent workers killed on the job?
Did our legislative personnel know this? How could they not? Is this the insurance/employer PAC's striking again?
There's more work to be done. This law is better than what we had before but still immoral as far as I'm concerned by letting the insurance industry off by saving 70% on the benefit payments. They shoud NOT profit from somebody's death.
Were the people of Texas duped?
Donald Coit Smith
Posted by: Donald Coit Smith at Wed Jun 6 00:43:11 2007 (P1Hqi)
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 6 00:58:42 2007 (dK8q9)
27 June 07
Thanks for the input. But in my opinion it has nothing to do with level of support. (While I know this death benefit insurance money would make a definite difference on some families lives...and it IS an insurance policy which subscribers pay in to... for legal protection against lawsuits on negligence). It has to do with what is right and what is wrong. This part of the law is morally wrong.
Exclusive Remedy was brought about by employers/insurance companies to safeguard themselves from negligence suits. So as it now stands, employers can virtually do nothing for worker protection, even to the point of violating FEDERAL LAW and walk away without suffering anything more than what is called "the cost of doing business". Our legislative branch, I suspect succumbing to large insurance/employer PAC's donation monies for (re)election(s) made these laws. While it may be good for drawing business, it sure does take a toll on the American worker... to the tune of 6,000 lives per year.
To update, in several recantatious conversations with Rep. Solomons office, I now am told the insurance industry DOES pay 72% of death benefits to the SIF. Their "reimbursements" come from that fund. Seems as if the devils like their cake... and are making the citizens of Texas swallow something else. We must eliminate this morally wrong part of this system. Vote for your legislators accordingly.
Donald Coit Smith
Posted by: Donald Coit Smith at Wed Jun 27 02:37:42 2007 (P1Hqi)
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 27 04:17:44 2007 (r+Ftq)
7 Jan 08
With new electorates coming into office (Delisi among others being replaced-not running for re-election) the effort to strengthen Family Rights continues with the sucessors. Please lobby for comp reform in the financial arena and a change in the comp law to allow prosecution of negligent employers. Please redefine "Gross" negligence to allow accountability.
DCS
Posted by: Donald Coit Smith at Mon Jan 7 09:16:00 2008 (P1Hqi)
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jan 7 10:13:58 2008 (Ke9lM)
21 queries taking 0.0118 seconds, 35 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.