Judge rules dead miner's family entitled to benefits (killed in the Crandall Canyon Mine collapse)

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Salt Lake Tribune

By Brooke Adams, For the parents of a miner killed in the Crandall Canyon Mine collapse, a ruling Wednesday that they are entitled to benefits in a "small way" acknowledges their son's effort to care for his family.

Administrative law judge Aurora Holley of the Utah Labor Commission on Wednesday ordered Genwal Resources Inc. and Rockwood Casualty Insurance Co. to pay full benefits to the parents of Juan Carlos Payan. Holley said evidence showed the couple and two younger sisters were supported financially by the single 22-year-old miner at the time of the 2007 disaster.

Isabel Villa is a homemaker, and Jose Luis Payan is disabled because of an eye injury and unable to work as a truck driver. They live in Ensenada, Mexico. Payan sent money to provide for them and cover school costs for his sisters.

The judge ordered that the couple be paid $565 per week for 312 weeks from their son's death in mid-2007.


Read more: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11350518

[GCP]

1. Why does that judge hate America?

Seriously, that's great news for the family, and a kcik in the face to that peace of shit who owned that mine.

[Joe Chi Minh]

2. Tremendous news. Although it should be routine.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Victims of capitalism

Economic desperation forces people to work under dangerous conditions. Faith in Jesus, instead of Marx, makes them reject unionization. Thousands of workers are injured. maimed or killed in the United States every year, and mostly in non-union jobs.

[ashling]

4. Hmmm. I choose door #3

Faith in Jesus, instead of Marx,

What about Soupy Sales? :shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

5. There are only two doors: Socialism or barbarism

We have seen and tasted barbarism.

[Moosepoop]

6. Belief in Jesus and faith in unions are mutually exclusive?

Is it the Christian religion that doesn't allow its members to unionize, or unions that don't accept Christians? Either way, my family has evidently been doing something wrong for decades now.

[IndianaGreen]

9. It is in the Bible Belt n/t

[gratuitous]

10. I didn't know the decedent

But I'm guessing that he took the job because financial considerations didn't permit any other route. And he kept the job because he was terrorized by his overseers against union "agitation." I'd bet a shiny nickel, though, that the bosses had a lot more influence on the 22-year-old Juan Carlos Payan than Jesus did.

[dave123williams]

7. Note that they (the mining company) were fighting this in court.

Greedy, amoral pricks. Right to the end.

[MamaDem]

8. The ones fighting this was the insurance company, trying to avoid paying workers' compensation

benefits. In most states, benefits are limited to immediate family and it is very difficult to show a relationship of a child supporting a parent. I am in no way defending the position of the company, but that is what this is. The company cannot tell the insurance company what they should or should not pay - though they were incredibly stupid in my opinion to not have tried to settled this. The insurance company makes that call. Most states limit survivor benefits. I am in FL and it's 150K plus 7500 towards burial - that is it. And it's limited so that is the maximum payout with caps if it a spouse remarries later or a dependent child goes to college.

As for this case, I would not be suprised to see it appealed. Each state has it's own workers' compensation laws and cases such as these do not go to a jury trial - thus the ALJ. The unfortunate thing here is that in most cases the insurance companies can pay their in-house attorneys whatever they want to litigate these cases and the claimant's faimily's attorney doesn't get paid unless they secure benefits.

At any rate, I just wanted to clarify - this is not a civil or criminal suit - it is an attempt to secure suvivor's benefits under the workers' compensation policy. Also, workers' compensation is a "no fault" benefit. The family will have to file a seperate lawsuit for damages due to negligence or liability. And because they took the Workers' Compensation benefits it may make that much more difficult. Workers' Compensation in most states is strictly medical and indeminty (wages) and there is no "monopoly money" for damages - that's where the real money is. In many states it is extremely difficult to prove employer negligence and recover under both the employer's liability and workers' compensation policies simultaneously. In addition, one side of the policy can actually have a lien on the other (in some instances). I don't know all the in's and out's of this case, but it is interestng nonetheless.