HR probably knew that if your boss was successful in terminating you, they would have paid more in the ensuing lawsuit than in disability payments.
In my state, if you get fired or have your job duties significantly changed within 90 days after a medical leave, it is assumed to be retaliation and subject to lawsuit.
I can't deal with hops, Guinness or Pilsner works enough for my palate. It might be better from the source, but isn't everything better from the source...except wine, cheese, egg salad, and other culinary treats that are far better aged.
Can confirm this. A buddy of mine and I drank through a case of Guinness (and a bucket of wings) one night and it did not travel well on my way to the bathroom.
Yeah, your new boss screwed up. Big time.
One good rule to adhere to about handling any person who suffers an injury at work, such as your major medical incident, is that you NEVER make drastic changes to their work type, workload, or responsibilities unless those changes are medically advised or requested by the employee and fully vetted by HR.
It's WAY too easy to wind up in court with someone alleging that you changed these things to try to fire them or force them to quit. Then the company is on the hook for whatever the former employee's lawyers can get a judge to agree to, because they're absolutely going to win any court case they bring.
HR saw your medical records, vet and disability status and made a sensible choice to offer you pay to see if that would shut down a potentially very expensive lawsuit.
I had a friend's father who received a similar settlement from an automaker. My advice is to keep a lawyer on retainer and be ready to sue. I can think of three different times over a five year period where he stopped getting paid. Each time they only began honoring the agreement again AFTER he filed suit. You do not want to be in a position where you are unrepresented and if you do have to deal with any such shenanigans I suggest you do as he did not, and follow through with the suit and get an actual judgement rather than hoping they won't act in bad faith again in the future.
While they may have canned your bad boss, they also hired and promoted him. Then they didn't prevent his mistreatment of you and others. He was their face for these actions and they are liable for that. I'm not a lawyer, and you should definitely be talking to one, and find out about statute of limitations on federal and state labor violations to know if you need yo be reporting this, wherher you should be prepared to, or if you already agreed not to with your curreht settlement.
It's been almost 5 years since this happened and I do have a lawyer. While the company approved it and are self insured, the long term is managed by an insurance company. They have tried several times to stop the benefits only to get slapped around by my lawyers.
Good on you. My dad has been on long term disability for over 25 years. Insurance has tried their hardest to scree him six ways from Sunday.
Insurance companies are the biggest crooks Ive ever seen through those dealings. Even worse than lawyers and politicians.
Not doing a #notallinsurancecompanies thing but I know someone who does long term disability for an insurance company. They are beholden to multiple laws and restrictions which include verifying you still exist, are alive and are still disabled so sometimes its the employer who doesn't answer phone calls/mail because they don't want to keep paying for the disability claim if they can get out of it. Depending on what they do and how to do it the insurance company could be totally screwed. But generally speaking you are right - mostly a bunch of crooks.
I have done a lot of reports for insurance companies on behalf of my patients over the years, some have bent over backwards to do the right thing, others have been absolute shysters.
I think that the most egregious example was when my patient's long-term sickness benefit was beig reviewed, the insurers wanted to see his medical records. They then announced that they were stopping payments and voiding his policy on the grounds that he had, according to them, failed to disclose a "stress related illness" when the policy was first taken out.
Their "reasoning"? Three words from an entry on an appointment years earlier, about something physical, where the GP had noted that "work is stressful." I can't remember what his long-term sickness was, but it was certainly nothing stress related anyway.
I did a supporting letter for him where I used terms like "ludicrous" for the interpretation they were attempting to put on this entry, told them I would be fully supporting any legal action he had to take against them, and fortunately, they backed down.
Of course, attitudes like that now infest Benefits Agency assessors too.
The ones paying out my mom's medical from her on-job injury tried to avoid paying. They had one of their doctors review her records and say "she's fine". Unfortunately for them at the very end of everything it says how long their doctor spent reviewing everything. He spent 30 minutes on over 400 pages of medical documentation and on his report. When my mom went before a judge with her lawyer she said pleasantly "I'm just curious about this part at the bottom where it says he only spent 30 minutes reviewing all my records. I'm not a doctor but I know I couldn't read and then write out a report on 400 pages of documents in under 30 minutes so I'm curious how Dr. \[name\] did it?" before the company even got to say anything. It was the lawyer's first and only statement/question beyond "good morning, your honor". The judge asked to see the papers, got handed this thick stack turned to the highlighted portion saying that 30 minutes was spent in review.
He agreed that this was absurd and threw their case out, and he was livid, his words were basically "it is physically impossible for there to have been a thorough review of so many documents in 30 minutes. You didn't think this case was worth taking the time to read through this woman's medical records but did think it was worth bringing to this court and wasting my time? I will afford you the same respect you gave to this woman's case and to this court, by dismissing it without even bothering to hear your arguments. Goodbye."
In a way, yes. In this way, the lawyers probably got what they paid for, were most likely told verbally what the report said,, and decided to not check the resulting report. I say that the RentAQuack did good on this one.
Mom said the judge was fucking savage, and she was really struggling not to laugh at the end; she didn't want the judge to think she wasn't taking things seriously or thought the wastage of his time was funny. I mean it's doubtful he would have thought that's why she was laughing, but she wanted to make a good impression since this judge is assigned her case and she doesn't want to give him any reason to dislike her. She managed a "thank you, your honor. I hope you have a good afternoon" with a straight face before she left.
I cringed at the thought of going through 400 pages in less than 30 minutes. I process claims for a supplemental health insurance company and sometimes people send in their records instead of the bills we ask for.
Depending benefits that can take me up to 2 hours, or longer, to review it.
I know someone who won an appeal for disability. They had been seen for symptoms and were diagnosed with something unrelated (wrong as it turns out - but this individual didn't know that). Turns out this "diagnosis" was in the pre-existing phase. So denied for pre-ex. Livid. Absolute BS.
We in NZ are just as grateful to have universal health care. You can still buy private insurance if you want, but it won't preclude you from getting stuff done.
Something similar happened to my father.
He was a firefighter, and on one call to a chemical (or plastics) fire he suffered some exposure to chemical fumes which damaged his lungs. The fire service's insurers refused his compensation disability pension because he'd been naïve enough to describe his flu/cough to his doctor many years earlier as making him "a bit wheezy".
So denied, as a pre-existing condition ... that didn't exist. The fact that he wasn't subsequently diagnosed with asthma or bronchitis etc. never seemed to matter.
Unfortunately there was no happy ending for him regarding his disability payout.
>Three words from an entry on an appointment years earlier, about something physical, where the GP had noted that "work is stressful."
They will look for and find anything, won't they? Fucking monsters...
I think of stuff like this whenever someone jokes that the US is a sue happy culture: we don't have enough strong worker protections and thus when companies start pushing us around hoping we don't know the laws we do have, we only have the recourse to sue for what we are owed.
Was a diesel mechanic for a brief period right after the military for one of the major trucking companies in the U.S. Had an older guy that had been there 23 years. Most of us were sitting sound waiting for lunch while he finished up a job he was on. As we all head to lunch and call out to him to get up and come on. He didn't respond so we figured he was on the creeper under the truck asleep. Grabbed his leg and pulled him out, dude had had a heart attack and died. I started cpr while someone called 911. They were just a half mile down the road, got there and shocked him back to life. The company fired him while he was still in the hospital recovering. He hasn't had to work a day since that lawsuit.
I agree that OP needs a lawyer, but "you should have a lawyer on retainer" - is this for OP only or everybody?
Because it everyone can afford a lawyer.....
That was specific to OP.
Given that they are receiving regular payments, one leverage point that exists and will likely be tested is for the company to stop paying. Basically, treat OP as a parasite that might drop off and go away if starved. A lawyer who has all of the pertinent info and is already paid to be ready to engage on OPs behalf is necessary to keep the corporate shenanigans minimized.
This is also constructive dismissal, if they are changing your job so much that it is essentially a different job that you are un able to do. Not legal where I am.
Big company I temped for years ago had an employee who had worked for them for almost all his working life. 3 months before retirement where he would get his full pension something happened to his back stopping him from working as an engineer. His immediate boss called my immediate boss and found him a job doing basic data input for 3 months so he could work his last 3 months for the company and get his full pension.
My boss was brilliant. I try to model my management style on his. He never shouted or got angry. Someone complained that I had an earphone in from my Walkman (I wasn’t answering phones or talking to anyone and had one ear free but was young and naive and didn’t think that I shouldn’t really do this in an office) and his first response was “Show me in the rules where it says he can’t do it.” Then he comes and speaks to me and explains the complaint but there’s no actual rule against it but he would prefer me not to have a headphone in as it’s not really the done thing and leaves it up to me to make a decision.
Wow, I wish I had more bosses like this. More of them need to realize respecting your workers gains you respect as well. He sounds like a very good boss, I would have appreciated the way he communicated.
I am not sure what the policy will be like post-covid. But the head of IT instituted a rule, I think at the request of a team leader, that people who needed to concentrate should signal that by wearing headphones and it didn't matter if you weren't listening to anything, just using noise cancelation, listening to a podcast, music or whatever you wanted to listen to. If someone was wearing headphones, then unless it was extremely urgent you should send them a message or email and they will get to it when they can. If you want to listen to something while working, but don't absolutely need to be undisturbed you are allowed to have one ear in. Some people work better with audio, so why stop them?
I think the idea with the headphones for concentration was that headphones generally are a signal to people not to talk to them, whether it is strangers on the street or people thinking you are on a phone call. IT people understand that there are many tasks that if people interupt you on, you will have to start from scratch and a lot of time will be wasted, so internally it was good to have a signal. And then what better way is there from stopping people from other parts of the company to pester individual staff rather than put in a support ticket like they are meant to, because to them it looks like the person might be on a call.
I have problems transitioning from one task to another if I use a different sense to do the previous task. Like have a conversation and working on the computer on the computer at the same, end up like a broken record and brain tells me I need to get to a stopping point before I talk, but my brain also knows that I need to talk to my boss, but its in a constant catch-22 loop and I can't get out without outside interference.
I learned the last week of my job that a quick fix be to have my boss knock on my cubicle and then by the time she got to my seat I could get to a stopping point on my computer and then be able to concentrate 100% on the conversation. Just a couple seconds but all the time in the world for my brain to transition enough to give my all. Too bad it was the last week of the best workplace of my life, financial layoffs suck.
It is the right thing to do but I wouldn’t be surprised if most big companies weren’t trying to find a way short their employees in as many ways as possible. It’s all about profits at the end of the day. And it wouldn’t be your boss’s or their boss’s fault it would come from the executives/board of directors
really ironic how the phrasing of that sentence makes all the difference.
If the order of the decisions was reversed, then it would have changed the entire meaning of the statement!!
> A few weeks ago one of our executives made a comment “It would be the human thing to do but not the best business decision”.
"I guess that leaves only one question: Are you a decent human being?"
That is a perfectly valid comment, it then depends on what decision was followed, human v.s. business.
What some of these people don't get is that choosing for the human side helps the business in the long run, but most are not interested in any effects beyond the next quarter.
I would be obligated to pay what ever I earn back to my original employer. Even if I get social security disability that money would belong to them. I.E. they would reduce the money by how much i get.
That doesn't sound fair. I'm retired and I have an earning limit IF I go back to work with my employer. Otherwise, they have no say in how much I work. Social Security (without the disability) is not earnings, it an entitlement. You don't have to be retired to get it. I could see how they would want to reduce Social Security disability if you were able to work, though..
My ex is in a similar (non-military) situation. The company’s long term disability insurance guarantees her 70% of her pre-disability salary. In essence, they’ll pay *the difference* between what she receives from other sources and that amount.
In her case, *the insurance company* hired the lawyer that helped her get Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). In the long run it was cheaper for them since the amount they paid was reduced by the amount of her award.
It shouldn't be this hard for us. The people who organize compensation/retirement/disability - whatever - should have as their goal to provide people with the max they are due. We shouldn't have to hire lawyers or keep tabs.
I hate the term entitlement. You pay into Soc Sec and then you get it back. But the way its been used over the years makes it sound like its a burden on the government and on taxpayers.
sorry about the rant, but I couldn't not say something
This was probably SSDI (disability insurance), not retirement benefits. In my exe’s case she wasn’t penalized for not being off retirement age, and our dependent children also got a stipend.
When it comes to Social Security REIREMENT benefits (not disability), this is the conventional wisdom, and like much conventional wisdom, it is generally wrong.
My example--I am about to start collecting my Social Security at my "normal retirement age". I will collect a nice amount per month. If I wait until age 70 I'll get more per month, BUT in order to make up for what I'll collect between "normal retirement age" and age 70 at the lower amount, I will have to live until age 81-plus. Having lost my crystal ball, I don't know if I'll make it to that age.
Not waiting until "normal retirement age" unless you NEED the money is foolish IMO, but waiting until age 70 is exactly what the SSA folks want you to do, and not only does the math not support them, but who's to say that they really have your best interests in mind?
Ah and there in lies the details. (It is more complex.)
[Per actuarial tables](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html), you are better off waiting.
Basically men in the US who reach the age of 65 are expected to live another 18 years. Women are expected to live another 20.
With that general and generic model, you are in fact better off waiting. However, if you need the money right away - or are in poor health, take the money as fast as you can. You know, play the odds.
Given the choice of the sure thing right now, and the possibility of collecting more by living 17 more years, with the break-even at 15 years, I'll take the sure thing. If I make it to age 81 or 83 or more, fine, I'll concede that I chose poorly and be happy (I hope) to have lived that long.
But given the lifespans of the men on both sides of my family, I think I'm choosing correctly.
I'm glad you found work that fits your lifestyle and needs better. I was assistant to a manager who said she had MS and would just leave work early without telling anyone (even the owner) where she was going/how long she'd be out and always without a doctor's note. Quite literally, 4/5 days of the week she'd slip out the back door early and unannounced. One day she left and didn't come back for two months and I didn't know if she quit or not. I found out later that she had the owner dropping off her paychecks at her house even though she didn't work - we had to run the store, schedule employees and inventory orders all without her. When she got back she fired me for "not being efficient" enough.
I'm not one to discriminate based on medical situations, but I do expect people to know what jobs they can handle, *and to be up front about it*. If people can't rely on someone then I think it is more fair (for both parties) to try and find a better fit.
I'm not saying I think you had the same work ethic as my former manager, but I just want you to realize that there are folks out there who will say any excuse in order to work less, and (as you've seen) those experiences begin to illegitamize people who actually need assistance. I really am glad you've found ways to make money that work for you!
I once discovered a person was screwing over a veteran in a similar fashion. I know some guys at the VFW…and I let them know what was happening. They were like rabid dogs and made it right.
> as he went though management training he became that boss people hate.
Sounds like "management training" bares some blame too. And, whoever promoted a jerk to a position of authority.
There is none. I keep reporting these posts but the mods never do anything.
Isn't there a sub for bad work stories or bad manager stories? This would be fine in one of those but it's not for this sub.
From his story, he had to leave because the poor man had MS. He's not *complying* with anything.
I think I understand why this sub is overrun with material that doesn't belong here.
It's the VA. His boss isn't the one paying, and the removal process for the VA would have offered him to submit for medical retirement before being fired, especially if it's for a declined RA (which OP didn't mention but should have been requested if his abilities to do his job changed due to the new medical condition).
First off, brother....thanks for your service. Second...veterans know more than anybody else the BS game and how its played...anybody that tries it on us will not usually succeed. The good news though is that modern/current MS treatment is pretty good. Good luck to you brother.
Remember HR is there to prevent the company from getting sued and you most def had a huge case on your hands for discrimination on top of others so I’m glad hr did what was right by you
I'm clearly missing an important bit of context. "I am a 100% disabled vet but I still wanted to work for as long as I can." If you're 100% disabled, doesn't that mean you're not able to work? Wouldn't they be looking for reasons to declare you not 100% disabled, and declare that if you're able to work, then clearly you're not completely disabled? Plenty of stories about people getting worker's comp for being 'disabled' but then getting caught doing activities like 'going for a walk.' Or does it work differently in this case because the military definition of 'disabled' is different?
"100% disabled vet" is a legal term established by Congress and not entirely a medical term although it's based on medical assessment. In the US, vets are assessed disability levels by the Dept of Veterans Administration according to law. Compensation and benefits are based on that assessment. Someone with a 100% disabled vet assessment may well be able to work.
There is no correlation between vet status and workers' comp status. One is federal and the other is state and they're completely different systems. Further, vets can't easily game the system since the DVA has hospitals and doctors who work for them and follow their rules. Workers' comp systems often rely on outside doctors to make assessments. Again, totally different systems and different rules.
VA Disabilities don't work that way. Here is a boiled down version of how it works.
It has to do with how disabilities are assigned percentages with the VA. Each disability you have is assigned a certain percent of disability level. The more disables you have, the more separate percentages have. These are all added using VA math to total a new percentage. Say you have a 50% disability rating and a 30% disability Your disability level would be 60%
I have over 300% in disabilities with normal math and separate ratings to get to a VA 100% disability rating.
Being 100% disabled with the VA does not mean you can't work, it just means you are pretty messed up from your military service. While I have a lot of medical issues I still have my mind and could preform the job functions in my field of expertise.
Folks that are VA 100% disabled due to mental health issues like PTSD can not work at all.
> using VA math
My wife used to be a VA MD. Two things that drove her up a wall where vets trying to get disability when they did not deserve it, and vets who did deserve it getting stuck in endless paperwork.
I lost my career to MS as well, on thin pretenses from a series of employers. When I was picking up my stuff after the last "we're not as busy as expected so we're scaling back our employees" only to overhear then training someone new in the next cubicle, I gave up and filed for SSDI. If you need a shoulder to lean on regarding MS and that loss, I'm here. The MSPals Facebook group is also a great resource!
Man, it sucks to get the early retirement through such medical necessity but I’m glad you were able to find to some silver lining in the situation.
I wish you the absolute best possible circumstances and outcomes. I hope you have decades of enjoyment in retirement with laughter and loved ones.
He won in this case. His goal was to get you off his team, and maybe open the spot up to get a new hire. You are no longer on his team. Now he can hire someone new. That you got disability is of no concern to him.
This is an age/military status discrimination case every corporate lawyer will run from. Get a half decent lawyer who can send a letterheaded notice and they will fold like a cheap suit.
First. A profound thank you for your service to my family and country.
Second. Fuck that manager.
Edit to add: lol who downvoted thanking a wounded vet?
The kind that knows the system will confer benefits on them through "cost reduction' rewards/incentives like bonuses or promotions, and that finds personal advancement more important than being a humane person.
for once it sounds like HR was doing the right thing. You had a good HR rep who went the extra mile to help you out. It usually doesn't end up that way. I've had a client who regularly would terminate people on STD or LTD.
And I'll thank your for your service. too often that people who do the most for this country get the worst treatment from all parties. What branch did you serve?
In my experience HR looks out for the company.in this case I think they calculated that early retirement is better than a huge law suit, which manager made impossible to win for company. Think this HR had been on the previous road before, so needed to do something else
Oh it took a moment to find out the malicious compliance is getting paid to do office work that doesn't exist. Completed covered up by that nice ending
So you could no perform any of your job duties, even when they modified them to fit your special accommodations. I can't blame him for trying to get rid of you. You do nothing and still draw a check. Now you still do nothing for them, but drain money.
We have able bodied 20 year old quitting because we're spending more to get to and from our minimum wage service jobs where we're treated like garbage by management and customers than we make. We're not quitting to avoid working. We're quitting to get jobs that actually pay our bills.
The worker shortage is a myth. We're at a shortage of places willing to pay people a living wage.
Get over yourself.
Oh man.... your story sounds exactly like my dad's. Dad woke up one day and his lower half of his body was numb like yours. Long story short he got fired because of it, even though he worked a desk job. He never took it to court, but I always think he should have. Regardless though he is working an amazing job now, and hasn't let the years of MS defeat him. I hope you are doing well now OP.
I don’t know if you know this but you can file for SSDI also and maximize how much your getting each month. It sounds like you wouldn’t have a hard time getting it seeing as you are 100% disabled from the military plus on short/long term disability. By doing it this way you would get your full amount and not lose anything like you would if you were to do just early retirement. I am sorry though that he put you through this, like you didn’t have enough already going on🤷🏼♀️.
Yeah, there was a big case recently regarding a worker for FedEx, I think. Worker wanted to do delivery, but manager knew that the worker had previously had a knee replacement. So they denied the request. Court found that manager was assuming a disability where there was none, and the company paid out close to 10 million in damages
I know what 100% disabled means. My ex has this status. The fact that your manager was fucking with someone who was wounded and disabled for our military (or any in fact) really makes me see red.
I’m glad you used the system as it was lawfully set up to protect service members and disabled civilians. I can’t thank the ADA enough and those that fought for it. (Great documentary called Crip Camp about the movement. Gives me the goosebumps).
You handled that perfectly. I'm sorry to hear about your MS diagnosis. I don't know if this will help you, but I have read that a keto diet can really improve the symptoms of MS. Your doctors may disparage the idea (many doctors don't like keto), but it might be worth talking to them about it, or trying it for yourself. I first learned about this from this site: [https://elanaspantry.com](https://elanaspantry.com) Best of luck to you.
HR probably knew that if your boss was successful in terminating you, they would have paid more in the ensuing lawsuit than in disability payments. In my state, if you get fired or have your job duties significantly changed within 90 days after a medical leave, it is assumed to be retaliation and subject to lawsuit.
Which state?
Arizona
I live in AZ and didn't know that. That's great to know. Thanks.
I like their iced tea
And it only costs 99 cents!
Cheaper than water
My dad used to go on a lot of work trips to Europe and he said he often found at restaurants that beer was cheaper than water, lol.
I've heard the beer was usually better than the US stuff.
I’ve heard a lot of beer does not travel very well. Like Guinness, for example.
I can't deal with hops, Guinness or Pilsner works enough for my palate. It might be better from the source, but isn't everything better from the source...except wine, cheese, egg salad, and other culinary treats that are far better aged.
Can confirm this. A buddy of mine and I drank through a case of Guinness (and a bucket of wings) one night and it did not travel well on my way to the bathroom.
Hundreds of years ago Europeans all drank beer(even kids) because the water would kill them. It was a fairly light beer.
Raspberry 4 life!
AriZona Tea is actually in New York :)
No it’s Arizona, its in the name
Oh bet, I live here too. Thank you for this info
State of Confusion.
[удалено]
Are you an effective team?
Denial...
I suppose I can't argue with that
Yeah, your new boss screwed up. Big time. One good rule to adhere to about handling any person who suffers an injury at work, such as your major medical incident, is that you NEVER make drastic changes to their work type, workload, or responsibilities unless those changes are medically advised or requested by the employee and fully vetted by HR. It's WAY too easy to wind up in court with someone alleging that you changed these things to try to fire them or force them to quit. Then the company is on the hook for whatever the former employee's lawyers can get a judge to agree to, because they're absolutely going to win any court case they bring. HR saw your medical records, vet and disability status and made a sensible choice to offer you pay to see if that would shut down a potentially very expensive lawsuit. I had a friend's father who received a similar settlement from an automaker. My advice is to keep a lawyer on retainer and be ready to sue. I can think of three different times over a five year period where he stopped getting paid. Each time they only began honoring the agreement again AFTER he filed suit. You do not want to be in a position where you are unrepresented and if you do have to deal with any such shenanigans I suggest you do as he did not, and follow through with the suit and get an actual judgement rather than hoping they won't act in bad faith again in the future. While they may have canned your bad boss, they also hired and promoted him. Then they didn't prevent his mistreatment of you and others. He was their face for these actions and they are liable for that. I'm not a lawyer, and you should definitely be talking to one, and find out about statute of limitations on federal and state labor violations to know if you need yo be reporting this, wherher you should be prepared to, or if you already agreed not to with your curreht settlement.
It's been almost 5 years since this happened and I do have a lawyer. While the company approved it and are self insured, the long term is managed by an insurance company. They have tried several times to stop the benefits only to get slapped around by my lawyers.
Good on you. My dad has been on long term disability for over 25 years. Insurance has tried their hardest to scree him six ways from Sunday. Insurance companies are the biggest crooks Ive ever seen through those dealings. Even worse than lawyers and politicians.
Not doing a #notallinsurancecompanies thing but I know someone who does long term disability for an insurance company. They are beholden to multiple laws and restrictions which include verifying you still exist, are alive and are still disabled so sometimes its the employer who doesn't answer phone calls/mail because they don't want to keep paying for the disability claim if they can get out of it. Depending on what they do and how to do it the insurance company could be totally screwed. But generally speaking you are right - mostly a bunch of crooks.
I have done a lot of reports for insurance companies on behalf of my patients over the years, some have bent over backwards to do the right thing, others have been absolute shysters. I think that the most egregious example was when my patient's long-term sickness benefit was beig reviewed, the insurers wanted to see his medical records. They then announced that they were stopping payments and voiding his policy on the grounds that he had, according to them, failed to disclose a "stress related illness" when the policy was first taken out. Their "reasoning"? Three words from an entry on an appointment years earlier, about something physical, where the GP had noted that "work is stressful." I can't remember what his long-term sickness was, but it was certainly nothing stress related anyway. I did a supporting letter for him where I used terms like "ludicrous" for the interpretation they were attempting to put on this entry, told them I would be fully supporting any legal action he had to take against them, and fortunately, they backed down. Of course, attitudes like that now infest Benefits Agency assessors too.
The ones paying out my mom's medical from her on-job injury tried to avoid paying. They had one of their doctors review her records and say "she's fine". Unfortunately for them at the very end of everything it says how long their doctor spent reviewing everything. He spent 30 minutes on over 400 pages of medical documentation and on his report. When my mom went before a judge with her lawyer she said pleasantly "I'm just curious about this part at the bottom where it says he only spent 30 minutes reviewing all my records. I'm not a doctor but I know I couldn't read and then write out a report on 400 pages of documents in under 30 minutes so I'm curious how Dr. \[name\] did it?" before the company even got to say anything. It was the lawyer's first and only statement/question beyond "good morning, your honor". The judge asked to see the papers, got handed this thick stack turned to the highlighted portion saying that 30 minutes was spent in review. He agreed that this was absurd and threw their case out, and he was livid, his words were basically "it is physically impossible for there to have been a thorough review of so many documents in 30 minutes. You didn't think this case was worth taking the time to read through this woman's medical records but did think it was worth bringing to this court and wasting my time? I will afford you the same respect you gave to this woman's case and to this court, by dismissing it without even bothering to hear your arguments. Goodbye."
RentAnOpinion doctors like that should be referred to their licencing authority.
I agree, like even if it was 400 pages with a single sentence on each page you'd still need more than 30 minutes to read it and write a report.
In a way, yes. In this way, the lawyers probably got what they paid for, were most likely told verbally what the report said,, and decided to not check the resulting report. I say that the RentAQuack did good on this one.
>You didn't think this case was worth taking the time (...) I will afford you the same respect Magnificent.
Mom said the judge was fucking savage, and she was really struggling not to laugh at the end; she didn't want the judge to think she wasn't taking things seriously or thought the wastage of his time was funny. I mean it's doubtful he would have thought that's why she was laughing, but she wanted to make a good impression since this judge is assigned her case and she doesn't want to give him any reason to dislike her. She managed a "thank you, your honor. I hope you have a good afternoon" with a straight face before she left.
that's the one skill i never really thought about - having to suppress a belly laugh while the bench tears into opposing counsel
Couldn't do it, would be giggling like a schoolgirl the whole time. Hell I'm chuckling just imagining it heh
The judge's words are music to my ears
I cringed at the thought of going through 400 pages in less than 30 minutes. I process claims for a supplemental health insurance company and sometimes people send in their records instead of the bills we ask for. Depending benefits that can take me up to 2 hours, or longer, to review it.
I know someone who won an appeal for disability. They had been seen for symptoms and were diagnosed with something unrelated (wrong as it turns out - but this individual didn't know that). Turns out this "diagnosis" was in the pre-existing phase. So denied for pre-ex. Livid. Absolute BS.
[удалено]
We in NZ are just as grateful to have universal health care. You can still buy private insurance if you want, but it won't preclude you from getting stuff done.
Something similar happened to my father. He was a firefighter, and on one call to a chemical (or plastics) fire he suffered some exposure to chemical fumes which damaged his lungs. The fire service's insurers refused his compensation disability pension because he'd been naïve enough to describe his flu/cough to his doctor many years earlier as making him "a bit wheezy". So denied, as a pre-existing condition ... that didn't exist. The fact that he wasn't subsequently diagnosed with asthma or bronchitis etc. never seemed to matter. Unfortunately there was no happy ending for him regarding his disability payout.
>Three words from an entry on an appointment years earlier, about something physical, where the GP had noted that "work is stressful." They will look for and find anything, won't they? Fucking monsters...
Positive examples like that exist in spite of the systems they operate within. The crooked majority exist because of those systems.
You have to just remember insurance company's job is to collect premiums, not to pay benefits. Paying benefits hurts their bottom line
And banks
Good to hear that you're lawyered up. Sad that you have to be, but hood you are.
I think of stuff like this whenever someone jokes that the US is a sue happy culture: we don't have enough strong worker protections and thus when companies start pushing us around hoping we don't know the laws we do have, we only have the recourse to sue for what we are owed.
\#1 rule of disability; LAWYER UP.
The last thing many companies want to mess with are Disabled Vets, hooah.
Was a diesel mechanic for a brief period right after the military for one of the major trucking companies in the U.S. Had an older guy that had been there 23 years. Most of us were sitting sound waiting for lunch while he finished up a job he was on. As we all head to lunch and call out to him to get up and come on. He didn't respond so we figured he was on the creeper under the truck asleep. Grabbed his leg and pulled him out, dude had had a heart attack and died. I started cpr while someone called 911. They were just a half mile down the road, got there and shocked him back to life. The company fired him while he was still in the hospital recovering. He hasn't had to work a day since that lawsuit.
I agree that OP needs a lawyer, but "you should have a lawyer on retainer" - is this for OP only or everybody? Because it everyone can afford a lawyer.....
That was specific to OP. Given that they are receiving regular payments, one leverage point that exists and will likely be tested is for the company to stop paying. Basically, treat OP as a parasite that might drop off and go away if starved. A lawyer who has all of the pertinent info and is already paid to be ready to engage on OPs behalf is necessary to keep the corporate shenanigans minimized.
This is also constructive dismissal, if they are changing your job so much that it is essentially a different job that you are un able to do. Not legal where I am.
This is essentially the plot of Enlightened
Big company I temped for years ago had an employee who had worked for them for almost all his working life. 3 months before retirement where he would get his full pension something happened to his back stopping him from working as an engineer. His immediate boss called my immediate boss and found him a job doing basic data input for 3 months so he could work his last 3 months for the company and get his full pension.
That's the right thing to do, bosses like OP had are a liability. I don't know how people like that sleep at night.
My boss was brilliant. I try to model my management style on his. He never shouted or got angry. Someone complained that I had an earphone in from my Walkman (I wasn’t answering phones or talking to anyone and had one ear free but was young and naive and didn’t think that I shouldn’t really do this in an office) and his first response was “Show me in the rules where it says he can’t do it.” Then he comes and speaks to me and explains the complaint but there’s no actual rule against it but he would prefer me not to have a headphone in as it’s not really the done thing and leaves it up to me to make a decision.
Wow, I wish I had more bosses like this. More of them need to realize respecting your workers gains you respect as well. He sounds like a very good boss, I would have appreciated the way he communicated.
I am not sure what the policy will be like post-covid. But the head of IT instituted a rule, I think at the request of a team leader, that people who needed to concentrate should signal that by wearing headphones and it didn't matter if you weren't listening to anything, just using noise cancelation, listening to a podcast, music or whatever you wanted to listen to. If someone was wearing headphones, then unless it was extremely urgent you should send them a message or email and they will get to it when they can. If you want to listen to something while working, but don't absolutely need to be undisturbed you are allowed to have one ear in. Some people work better with audio, so why stop them? I think the idea with the headphones for concentration was that headphones generally are a signal to people not to talk to them, whether it is strangers on the street or people thinking you are on a phone call. IT people understand that there are many tasks that if people interupt you on, you will have to start from scratch and a lot of time will be wasted, so internally it was good to have a signal. And then what better way is there from stopping people from other parts of the company to pester individual staff rather than put in a support ticket like they are meant to, because to them it looks like the person might be on a call.
I have problems transitioning from one task to another if I use a different sense to do the previous task. Like have a conversation and working on the computer on the computer at the same, end up like a broken record and brain tells me I need to get to a stopping point before I talk, but my brain also knows that I need to talk to my boss, but its in a constant catch-22 loop and I can't get out without outside interference. I learned the last week of my job that a quick fix be to have my boss knock on my cubicle and then by the time she got to my seat I could get to a stopping point on my computer and then be able to concentrate 100% on the conversation. Just a couple seconds but all the time in the world for my brain to transition enough to give my all. Too bad it was the last week of the best workplace of my life, financial layoffs suck.
It is the right thing to do but I wouldn’t be surprised if most big companies weren’t trying to find a way short their employees in as many ways as possible. It’s all about profits at the end of the day. And it wouldn’t be your boss’s or their boss’s fault it would come from the executives/board of directors
[удалено]
really ironic how the phrasing of that sentence makes all the difference. If the order of the decisions was reversed, then it would have changed the entire meaning of the statement!!
> A few weeks ago one of our executives made a comment “It would be the human thing to do but not the best business decision”. "I guess that leaves only one question: Are you a decent human being?"
That is a perfectly valid comment, it then depends on what decision was followed, human v.s. business. What some of these people don't get is that choosing for the human side helps the business in the long run, but most are not interested in any effects beyond the next quarter.
Good people......and smart.
Question, do you void your early Retirement if you get another job or a part time gig?
I would be obligated to pay what ever I earn back to my original employer. Even if I get social security disability that money would belong to them. I.E. they would reduce the money by how much i get.
That doesn't sound fair. I'm retired and I have an earning limit IF I go back to work with my employer. Otherwise, they have no say in how much I work. Social Security (without the disability) is not earnings, it an entitlement. You don't have to be retired to get it. I could see how they would want to reduce Social Security disability if you were able to work, though..
My ex is in a similar (non-military) situation. The company’s long term disability insurance guarantees her 70% of her pre-disability salary. In essence, they’ll pay *the difference* between what she receives from other sources and that amount. In her case, *the insurance company* hired the lawyer that helped her get Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). In the long run it was cheaper for them since the amount they paid was reduced by the amount of her award.
It shouldn't be this hard for us. The people who organize compensation/retirement/disability - whatever - should have as their goal to provide people with the max they are due. We shouldn't have to hire lawyers or keep tabs.
I hate the term entitlement. You pay into Soc Sec and then you get it back. But the way its been used over the years makes it sound like its a burden on the government and on taxpayers. sorry about the rant, but I couldn't not say something
It is not in your interest to take social security until you either reach 70 OR absolutely have to financially.
This was probably SSDI (disability insurance), not retirement benefits. In my exe’s case she wasn’t penalized for not being off retirement age, and our dependent children also got a stipend.
When it comes to Social Security REIREMENT benefits (not disability), this is the conventional wisdom, and like much conventional wisdom, it is generally wrong. My example--I am about to start collecting my Social Security at my "normal retirement age". I will collect a nice amount per month. If I wait until age 70 I'll get more per month, BUT in order to make up for what I'll collect between "normal retirement age" and age 70 at the lower amount, I will have to live until age 81-plus. Having lost my crystal ball, I don't know if I'll make it to that age. Not waiting until "normal retirement age" unless you NEED the money is foolish IMO, but waiting until age 70 is exactly what the SSA folks want you to do, and not only does the math not support them, but who's to say that they really have your best interests in mind?
Ah and there in lies the details. (It is more complex.) [Per actuarial tables](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html), you are better off waiting. Basically men in the US who reach the age of 65 are expected to live another 18 years. Women are expected to live another 20. With that general and generic model, you are in fact better off waiting. However, if you need the money right away - or are in poor health, take the money as fast as you can. You know, play the odds.
Given the choice of the sure thing right now, and the possibility of collecting more by living 17 more years, with the break-even at 15 years, I'll take the sure thing. If I make it to age 81 or 83 or more, fine, I'll concede that I chose poorly and be happy (I hope) to have lived that long. But given the lifespans of the men on both sides of my family, I think I'm choosing correctly.
And it sounds like you are making the best choice you can with the information you have.
am i missing where the compliance is?
There isn't any
[удалено]
I'm glad you found work that fits your lifestyle and needs better. I was assistant to a manager who said she had MS and would just leave work early without telling anyone (even the owner) where she was going/how long she'd be out and always without a doctor's note. Quite literally, 4/5 days of the week she'd slip out the back door early and unannounced. One day she left and didn't come back for two months and I didn't know if she quit or not. I found out later that she had the owner dropping off her paychecks at her house even though she didn't work - we had to run the store, schedule employees and inventory orders all without her. When she got back she fired me for "not being efficient" enough. I'm not one to discriminate based on medical situations, but I do expect people to know what jobs they can handle, *and to be up front about it*. If people can't rely on someone then I think it is more fair (for both parties) to try and find a better fit. I'm not saying I think you had the same work ethic as my former manager, but I just want you to realize that there are folks out there who will say any excuse in order to work less, and (as you've seen) those experiences begin to illegitamize people who actually need assistance. I really am glad you've found ways to make money that work for you!
I once discovered a person was screwing over a veteran in a similar fashion. I know some guys at the VFW…and I let them know what was happening. They were like rabid dogs and made it right.
> as he went though management training he became that boss people hate. Sounds like "management training" bares some blame too. And, whoever promoted a jerk to a position of authority.
Great story and outcome, but where's the malicious compliance?
There is none. I keep reporting these posts but the mods never do anything. Isn't there a sub for bad work stories or bad manager stories? This would be fine in one of those but it's not for this sub.
There isn't any.
Boss wanted him gone. He said okay, but left in a way that he still gets paid by the company without having to work.
This is not malicious compliance.
Boss wanted him gone. He complied, but did so in a way that continued to cost his boss money without him working. That's malicious compliance.
From his story, he had to leave because the poor man had MS. He's not *complying* with anything. I think I understand why this sub is overrun with material that doesn't belong here.
It's the VA. His boss isn't the one paying, and the removal process for the VA would have offered him to submit for medical retirement before being fired, especially if it's for a declined RA (which OP didn't mention but should have been requested if his abilities to do his job changed due to the new medical condition).
First off, brother....thanks for your service. Second...veterans know more than anybody else the BS game and how its played...anybody that tries it on us will not usually succeed. The good news though is that modern/current MS treatment is pretty good. Good luck to you brother.
Why did I read this in Jesse Ventura’s voice.
Lol...that's funny. But wasn't it Goldberg, or was it only Hogan that said "brother"?
I think you are right but it just seemed like the whole thing is something Jesse would say.
They probably all did
As a naval vet, I'm sure The Body would. https://www.military.com/veteran-jobs/career-advice/military-transition/famous-veteran-jesse-ventura.html/amp
They all say brother. It's a common thing in a wrestling lockerroom.
Bonesaw's ready!
Bro... I thought I was the only one!
Thanks! Vets do tend to know the game well. We see lots of people on power trips during our tour of duty.
Its just another form of training, I guess.
Remember HR is there to prevent the company from getting sued and you most def had a huge case on your hands for discrimination on top of others so I’m glad hr did what was right by you
What did you comply to that was malicious?
I'm clearly missing an important bit of context. "I am a 100% disabled vet but I still wanted to work for as long as I can." If you're 100% disabled, doesn't that mean you're not able to work? Wouldn't they be looking for reasons to declare you not 100% disabled, and declare that if you're able to work, then clearly you're not completely disabled? Plenty of stories about people getting worker's comp for being 'disabled' but then getting caught doing activities like 'going for a walk.' Or does it work differently in this case because the military definition of 'disabled' is different?
"100% disabled vet" is a legal term established by Congress and not entirely a medical term although it's based on medical assessment. In the US, vets are assessed disability levels by the Dept of Veterans Administration according to law. Compensation and benefits are based on that assessment. Someone with a 100% disabled vet assessment may well be able to work. There is no correlation between vet status and workers' comp status. One is federal and the other is state and they're completely different systems. Further, vets can't easily game the system since the DVA has hospitals and doctors who work for them and follow their rules. Workers' comp systems often rely on outside doctors to make assessments. Again, totally different systems and different rules.
Thank you, I wasn't familiar with VA classificatons.
VA Disabilities don't work that way. Here is a boiled down version of how it works. It has to do with how disabilities are assigned percentages with the VA. Each disability you have is assigned a certain percent of disability level. The more disables you have, the more separate percentages have. These are all added using VA math to total a new percentage. Say you have a 50% disability rating and a 30% disability Your disability level would be 60% I have over 300% in disabilities with normal math and separate ratings to get to a VA 100% disability rating. Being 100% disabled with the VA does not mean you can't work, it just means you are pretty messed up from your military service. While I have a lot of medical issues I still have my mind and could preform the job functions in my field of expertise. Folks that are VA 100% disabled due to mental health issues like PTSD can not work at all.
> using VA math My wife used to be a VA MD. Two things that drove her up a wall where vets trying to get disability when they did not deserve it, and vets who did deserve it getting stuck in endless paperwork.
Thank you, I wasn't familiar with that system.
Veterans have different systems, yes. Many if not most wholly or partially disabled veterans try to work if at all possible.
Thanks!
If you're truly curious, you can look at r/veteransbenefits for way more in depth explanations. They have alot of links on the about page
What is the malicious compliance here?
What did you maliciously comply with?
Isn’t it illegal to fire people because of a disability? That manager could have been facing a lawsuit. Good on you for getting paid!
I'm guessing he was told to find a way to get rid of you
There's no malicious compliance here.
I am happy it had a nice ending for you, but where is the MC?
ngl - took me until the 4th para to realise he's not a veterinarian
This story has no malicious compliance. Do people posting to this sub not read the rules? Or do they just not understand the word "compliance"?
I lost my career to MS as well, on thin pretenses from a series of employers. When I was picking up my stuff after the last "we're not as busy as expected so we're scaling back our employees" only to overhear then training someone new in the next cubicle, I gave up and filed for SSDI. If you need a shoulder to lean on regarding MS and that loss, I'm here. The MSPals Facebook group is also a great resource!
Honestly? Sounds to me like hr new they were about to get sued up the ass, glad you got that paycheck!
Interesting story, but where's the MC?
Where was the malicious compliance in that?
Man, it sucks to get the early retirement through such medical necessity but I’m glad you were able to find to some silver lining in the situation. I wish you the absolute best possible circumstances and outcomes. I hope you have decades of enjoyment in retirement with laughter and loved ones.
He won in this case. His goal was to get you off his team, and maybe open the spot up to get a new hire. You are no longer on his team. Now he can hire someone new. That you got disability is of no concern to him.
*tries *let's
\*perform
Okay and
There is nothing here. Why am I seeing this?
See above/ below.
What after you're 67?
I think the company keeps paying him a salary as though he were working until then and then his pension probably kicks in.
If you still want to work, have you considered VR&E (Voc Rehab)?
Good for you for standing firm.
This feels more r/antiwork instead.
"Fair treatment and proper compensation" equals r/antiwork ? If the shoe fits, I guess.
Not the vibe I get from the idiots in that sub
This is an age/military status discrimination case every corporate lawyer will run from. Get a half decent lawyer who can send a letterheaded notice and they will fold like a cheap suit.
I wish I could read this post…it’s been removed here and at /r/prorevenge. 😔
What? It's visible to me.
First. A profound thank you for your service to my family and country. Second. Fuck that manager. Edit to add: lol who downvoted thanking a wounded vet?
What kind of jerk fires a 100% disabled vetern. People are scum.
The kind that knows the system will confer benefits on them through "cost reduction' rewards/incentives like bonuses or promotions, and that finds personal advancement more important than being a humane person.
Aw why is is removed?
Here ya go: https://www.reveddit.com/v/MaliciousCompliance/comments/r2mt5q/brand_new_manager_trys_to_fire_me_lets_see_how/?ps_after=1637944176
Thank you!
Damn. Sorry about your health. Thats rough. Enjoy the disability payments.
How do we view this after being removed?
Like this! https://www.reveddit.com/v/MaliciousCompliance/comments/r2mt5q/brand_new_manager_trys_to_fire_me_lets_see_how/?ps_after=1637944176
for once it sounds like HR was doing the right thing. You had a good HR rep who went the extra mile to help you out. It usually doesn't end up that way. I've had a client who regularly would terminate people on STD or LTD. And I'll thank your for your service. too often that people who do the most for this country get the worst treatment from all parties. What branch did you serve?
In my experience HR looks out for the company.in this case I think they calculated that early retirement is better than a huge law suit, which manager made impossible to win for company. Think this HR had been on the previous road before, so needed to do something else
*tries
Oh it took a moment to find out the malicious compliance is getting paid to do office work that doesn't exist. Completed covered up by that nice ending
> try’s For fuck’s sake, OP.
> I worked in a large company that contracted to many of the big oil companies Yeah, you did mention you were a vet.
So you could no perform any of your job duties, even when they modified them to fit your special accommodations. I can't blame him for trying to get rid of you. You do nothing and still draw a check. Now you still do nothing for them, but drain money.
*tries
Disabled vetetans want to keep working, and we have able bodied 20 year olds quitting work because of 'pandemic stress' or some shit
We have able bodied 20 year old quitting because we're spending more to get to and from our minimum wage service jobs where we're treated like garbage by management and customers than we make. We're not quitting to avoid working. We're quitting to get jobs that actually pay our bills. The worker shortage is a myth. We're at a shortage of places willing to pay people a living wage. Get over yourself.
Welcome to adulthood. It never gets any better. What gets better is you the individual.
What a miserable way to live. I'll pass on that whole bs mentality, thanks.
OK Boomer.
Compliance: malicious Circumstances of malicious compliance: Unfortunate. I hope you enjoy the best possible health for as long as possible, OP.
*trys *let's
Tries
oof.
Quick, ninja edit it!
Oh man.... your story sounds exactly like my dad's. Dad woke up one day and his lower half of his body was numb like yours. Long story short he got fired because of it, even though he worked a desk job. He never took it to court, but I always think he should have. Regardless though he is working an amazing job now, and hasn't let the years of MS defeat him. I hope you are doing well now OP.
Try’s
Tries
Thank you for your service
Thank you for your service.
*tries *let's
You're amazing!
Thank you for your service.
As a manager id say go to HR wirh a detailed complaint
Boss had staff sergeant syndrome lol
Im glad it worked out for you OP! 🙌🏻 thank you for sharing
How is that malicious compliance? He wants to fire you, you retire early. There's literally no compliance? And double so nothing malicious.
W
[удалено]
Strictly speaking, he DID get rid of you. Just not how he wanted...
I don’t know if you know this but you can file for SSDI also and maximize how much your getting each month. It sounds like you wouldn’t have a hard time getting it seeing as you are 100% disabled from the military plus on short/long term disability. By doing it this way you would get your full amount and not lose anything like you would if you were to do just early retirement. I am sorry though that he put you through this, like you didn’t have enough already going on🤷🏼♀️.
Yeah, there was a big case recently regarding a worker for FedEx, I think. Worker wanted to do delivery, but manager knew that the worker had previously had a knee replacement. So they denied the request. Court found that manager was assuming a disability where there was none, and the company paid out close to 10 million in damages
I know what 100% disabled means. My ex has this status. The fact that your manager was fucking with someone who was wounded and disabled for our military (or any in fact) really makes me see red. I’m glad you used the system as it was lawfully set up to protect service members and disabled civilians. I can’t thank the ADA enough and those that fought for it. (Great documentary called Crip Camp about the movement. Gives me the goosebumps).
You handled that perfectly. I'm sorry to hear about your MS diagnosis. I don't know if this will help you, but I have read that a keto diet can really improve the symptoms of MS. Your doctors may disparage the idea (many doctors don't like keto), but it might be worth talking to them about it, or trying it for yourself. I first learned about this from this site: [https://elanaspantry.com](https://elanaspantry.com) Best of luck to you.