Just thought I'd air some sympathetic feelings.

My dentist is a woodworker, and he relayed some bad news to me today.
(From this point it's all hearsay, but...) His neighbour is the guy I like
to buy wood from, and his helper got sliced pretty badly by their shaper,
and is likely to lose at least one finger. Apparently he wasn't using a
guard, and can't get compensation for the injury.

I don't know anything about shapers other than they seem to be pretty
scary machines. It just seems pretty brutal that insurance won't cover the
injury, which I'm doubting was made by any reckless behaviour, knowing those
guys. Are the rules of compensation always appropriate? I'm reminded of a
minor incident on one of my summer jobs at an oil refinery. I was drilling
a hole in a piece of metal and it grabbed and nicked my finger. All
injuries had to be reported, so I went to the nurses' station to do just
that. I should have clamped the workpiece, but frankly I didn't know better
at the time. Instead I was asked why I wasn't wearing gloves! (Ummm, so
only my finger gets nicked instead of ripping of my entire hand, maybe?)

- Owen -

Owen Lawrence wrote:
Just thought I'd air some sympathetic feelings.

My dentist is a woodworker, and he relayed some bad news to me today.
(From this point it's all hearsay, but...) His neighbour is the guy I like
to buy wood from, and his helper got sliced pretty badly by their shaper,
and is likely to lose at least one finger. Apparently he wasn't using a
guard, and can't get compensation for the injury.

I don't know anything about shapers other than they seem to be pretty
scary machines. It just seems pretty brutal that insurance won't cover the
injury, which I'm doubting was made by any reckless behaviour, knowing those
guys. Are the rules of compensation always appropriate? I'm reminded of a
minor incident on one of my summer jobs at an oil refinery. I was drilling
a hole in a piece of metal and it grabbed and nicked my finger. All
injuries had to be reported, so I went to the nurses' station to do just
that. I should have clamped the workpiece, but frankly I didn't know better
at the time. Instead I was asked why I wasn't wearing gloves! (Ummm, so
only my finger gets nicked instead of ripping of my entire hand, maybe?)

- Owen -



If the worker was in fact denied workman's compensation he should appeal
the decision. The Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB)
even has a web page outlining the procedu

http://www.wsib.on.ca/wsib/wsibsite.nsf/Public/Appeals

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

In article , "Owen Lawrence" wrote:
Just thought I'd air some sympathetic feelings.

My dentist is a woodworker, and he relayed some bad news to me today.
(From this point it's all hearsay, but...) His neighbour is the guy I like
to buy wood from, and his helper got sliced pretty badly by their shaper,
and is likely to lose at least one finger. Apparently he wasn't using a
guard, and can't get compensation for the injury.

I don't know anything about shapers other than they seem to be pretty
scary machines. It just seems pretty brutal that insurance won't cover the
injury, which I'm doubting was made by any reckless behaviour, knowing those
guys.

I'd certainly consider using a shaper without a guard to be reckless. If one
is hand-feeding the stock, that is. Using a power feeder is a different story,
but hand-feeding with the guards removed is just asking for trouble. At least
if you get your fingers into a table saw blade, they can be reattached. Kinda
hard to reattach a pink mist...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Owen Lawrence"
wrote:
Just thought I'd air some sympathetic feelings.

My dentist is a woodworker, and he relayed some bad news to me today.
(From this point it's all hearsay, but...) His neighbour is the guy I
like to buy wood from, and his helper got sliced pretty badly by their
shaper,
and is likely to lose at least one finger. Apparently he wasn't using a
guard, and can't get compensation for the injury.

I don't know anything about shapers other than they seem to be pretty
scary machines. It just seems pretty brutal that insurance won't cover
the injury, which I'm doubting was made by any reckless behaviour, knowing
those guys.

I'd certainly consider using a shaper without a guard to be reckless. If
one is hand-feeding the stock, that is. Using a power feeder is a
different story, but hand-feeding with the guards removed is just asking
for trouble. At least if you get your fingers into a table saw blade, they
can be reattached. Kinda hard to reattach a pink mist...


Not knowing the whole story or what operation performed makes this purely
speculative. However, if he was using a template to shape an outline of
some sort, the use of a guard is not always possible. However, when that
is the case, the template should designed to make sure that the hands are
never close to the cutters.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Owen Lawrence" wrote in message

.. Apparently he wasn't using a
guard, and can't get compensation for the injury.

It just seems pretty brutal that insurance won't cover the injury,
which I'm doubting was made by any reckless behaviour, knowing those guys.
Are the rules of compensation always appropriate?

While I feel bad for the guy, why was he not using the guard? Whose fault?
If the employer took the guard off, there is a liability issue. If the
worker took the guard off, it was his fault.

No paying for willful negligence keeps the insurance rates down for the rest
of us.

On Jan 15, 6:57 pm, "Owen Lawrence" wrote:
Just thought I'd air some sympathetic feelings.

My dentist is a woodworker, and he relayed some bad news to me today.
(From this point it's all hearsay, but...) His neighbour is the guy I like
to buy wood from, and his helper got sliced pretty badly by their shaper,
and is likely to lose at least one finger. Apparently he wasn't using a
guard, and can't get compensation for the injury.

I don't know anything about shapers other than they seem to be pretty
scary machines. It just seems pretty brutal that insurance won't cover the
injury, which I'm doubting was made by any reckless behaviour, knowing those
guys. Are the rules of compensation always appropriate? I'm reminded of a
minor incident on one of my summer jobs at an oil refinery. I was drilling
a hole in a piece of metal and it grabbed and nicked my finger. All
injuries had to be reported, so I went to the nurses' station to do just
that. I should have clamped the workpiece, but frankly I didn't know better
at the time. Instead I was asked why I wasn't wearing gloves! (Ummm, so
only my finger gets nicked instead of ripping of my entire hand, maybe?)

- Owen -

As far as i know in an industrial setting all guards are supposed to
be used. When i was trained on that stuff (8ish years ago) In Ontario
no less i was hit with almost exactly that situation as a training
excersize.

Worker using a tablesaw cutting a large peice with an unseen nail. The
guard is removed to feed the peice through but the unseen nail causes
a kickback or throws a shard and takes out the worker.

In theory open and shut. NO guard Workers fault. IN practice the point
made there was the guard could not be used and still feed the
workpeice.

THose types of things need to be investigated case by case basis and
appealed if need be. But when you defeat safety measures for no good
reason then injure yourself there is a reaosn to deny claims.

Its your fingers, no job is worth being called stubs

Brent
Ottawa Canada

"Owen Lawrence" wrote in message
...
Just thought I'd air some sympathetic feelings.

My dentist is a woodworker, and he relayed some bad news to me today.
(From this point it's all hearsay, but...) His neighbour is the guy I
like to buy wood from, and his helper got sliced pretty badly by their
shaper, and is likely to lose at least one finger. Apparently he wasn't
using a guard, and can't get compensation for the injury.

I don't know anything about shapers other than they seem to be pretty
scary machines. It just seems pretty brutal that insurance won't cover
the injury, which I'm doubting was made by any reckless behaviour, knowing
those guys. Are the rules of compensation always appropriate? I'm
reminded of a minor incident on one of my summer jobs at an oil refinery.
I was drilling a hole in a piece of metal and it grabbed and nicked my
finger. All injuries had to be reported, so I went to the nurses' station
to do just that. I should have clamped the workpiece, but frankly I
didn't know better at the time. Instead I was asked why I wasn't wearing
gloves! (Ummm, so only my finger gets nicked instead of ripping of my
entire hand, maybe?)

- Owen -



Compensation is the key word here. Compensation in these type instances are
normally cash settlements on top of medical expenses. Medical expenses are
not normally considered compensation.

If you are fully insured, run a red light and have a wreck, does you
insurance company get to duck out of paying for the repair of you
automobile? No. If you are injured because you were not wearing a seat
belt, can the insurance company refuse to pay for medical costs? No.

I do not know of any incident where an insurance company is allowed to duck
out of paying for repairs/medical costs on someone that they are covering.
Additionally Workman's Comp an additional insurance, is to protect the
employer from loosing his company in a law settlement and to take care of
the needs of the injured, with in reason, no multi million dollar
settlements for loosing a finger. Workman's comp limits the employers
liability in the event the employer is found at fault.
With that in mind however the worker that was injured may be denied a cash
bonus for loss of a digit.

Guard or no guard, you can still be seriously injured with wood working
machines.

BTY, good to see you again Owen.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
.. .


While I feel bad for the guy, why was he not using the guard? Whose
fault? If the employer took the guard off, there is a liability issue. If
the worker took the guard off, it was his fault.

No paying for willful negligence keeps the insurance rates down for the
rest of us.

In reality I don't believe an insurance company can refuse medical care
costs within reason regardless of whose fault it is. The insurance company
can however drop the insured at any time, and that is the way insurance
rates are hopefully kept down. We really do not want insurance companies to
be able to decide when they are going to pay and when they are not going to
pay concerning an accident. Before you know it they may decide that the
injured worker may not be covered for medical expenses because he only had 7
hours of sleep the night before or because he was not wearing a jock strap
or....

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:150120082137214461%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article , Owen Lawrence
wrote:

Apparently he wasn't using a
guard, and can't get compensation for the injury.

Good.

Someone who deliberately bypasses safety devices has the right to do
so, but does NOT have the right to compensation if he gets injured.

I call it "paying the Stupid tax."

He deserves to pay it, not the businesses and individuals in Ontario
who contribute to Workers Comp.

This idea that any injury needs to be compensated is really, really f'd
up.

Let him sue your dentist's friend for damages.


Agreed, however he should still have medical expense coverage but no cash
settlement for dismemberment.

When I was in high school I was fascinated with the shaper.
I made tables with edges done on the shaper,
drop leaf tables.
Rail and Stile doors.
Not once did I use a guard. The unit didn't have one. I was scared when
I started. That was a big cutter, spinning fast.
The point is this. Back then there was no guard, or if there was it
wasn't in place. I am surprised at their attitude.

Owen Lawrence wrote:
Just thought I'd air some sympathetic feelings.

My dentist is a woodworker, and he relayed some bad news to me today.
(From this point it's all hearsay, but...) His neighbour is the guy I like
to buy wood from, and his helper got sliced pretty badly by their shaper,
and is likely to lose at least one finger. Apparently he wasn't using a
guard, and can't get compensation for the injury.

I don't know anything about shapers other than they seem to be pretty
scary machines. It just seems pretty brutal that insurance won't cover the
injury, which I'm doubting was made by any reckless behaviour, knowing those
guys. Are the rules of compensation always appropriate? I'm reminded of a
minor incident on one of my summer jobs at an oil refinery. I was drilling
a hole in a piece of metal and it grabbed and nicked my finger. All
injuries had to be reported, so I went to the nurses' station to do just
that. I should have clamped the workpiece, but frankly I didn't know better
at the time. Instead I was asked why I wasn't wearing gloves! (Ummm, so
only my finger gets nicked instead of ripping of my entire hand, maybe?)

- Owen -

Leon wrote:


Compensation is the key word here. Compensation in these type instances are
normally cash settlements on top of medical expenses. Medical expenses are
not normally considered compensation.


I believe workman's comp covers medical expenses and lost wages only.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

"Nova" wrote in message
news:Qbqjj.8422$sA6.2895@trndny08...
Leon wrote:


Compensation is the key word here. Compensation in these type instances
are normally cash settlements on top of medical expenses. Medical
expenses are not normally considered compensation.


I believe workman's comp covers medical expenses and lost wages only.


That could be true now but in the past it did limit the liability and an
employee could not sue the employer. IIRC the limit of damages beyond the
medical was $100K.

"Nova" wrote in message
news:Qbqjj.8422$sA6.2895@trndny08...
Leon wrote:


Compensation is the key word here. Compensation in these type instances
are normally cash settlements on top of medical expenses. Medical
expenses are not normally considered compensation.


I believe workman's comp covers medical expenses and lost wages only.


And with Canadacare, there are no medical, right?

Only lost time.

Strange how we sue employers and manufacturers for such negligence as
failure to remind us that picking up a lawnmower to use it as a hedge
trimmer exposes our fingers to danger, but don't want to deny a claim if
someone disregards any warning....

Leon wrote:
"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:150120082137214461%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article , Owen Lawrence
wrote:

Apparently he wasn't using a
guard, and can't get compensation for the injury.
Good.

Someone who deliberately bypasses safety devices has the right to do
so, but does NOT have the right to compensation if he gets injured.

I call it "paying the Stupid tax."

He deserves to pay it, not the businesses and individuals in Ontario
who contribute to Workers Comp.

This idea that any injury needs to be compensated is really, really f'd
up.

Let him sue your dentist's friend for damages.


Agreed, however he should still have medical expense coverage but no cash
settlement for dismemberment.



Just as an aside, and this doesn't
address whether or not he should be
given a cash settlement. This happened
in Ontario Canada, and the man's medical
bills are covered by the provincial
health system. No one will be out of
pocket for that. At least not for the
emergency and medium term care.

Long term is another matter, and I
believe that's what's being denied him.

--
Tanus

This is not really a sig.

http://www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/

Leon wrote:
"Nova" wrote in message
news:Qbqjj.8422$sA6.2895@trndny08...
Leon wrote:

Compensation is the key word here. Compensation in these type instances
are normally cash settlements on top of medical expenses. Medical
expenses are not normally considered compensation.

I believe workman's comp covers medical expenses and lost wages only.


That could be true now but in the past it did limit the liability and an
employee could not sue the employer. IIRC the limit of damages beyond the
medical was $100K.



it's been a while since I dealt with
these cases but about 10 years ago,
having Workman's Compensa
tion in Ontario nullified the right to
sue the employer. I'm guessing it's the
same now, but I could be wrong.

--
Tanus

This is not really a sig.

http://www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/

Tanus wrote:

.... snip

Just as an aside, and this doesn't
address whether or not he should be
given a cash settlement. This happened
in Ontario Canada, and the man's medical
bills are covered by the provincial
health system. No one will be out of
pocket for that.

Well, the money to pay that is coming from somewhere. It's the taxpayers
that will pony up that bill.


At least not for the
emergency and medium term care.

Long term is another matter, and I
believe that's what's being denied him.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

In article , Tanus wrote:

Just as an aside, and this doesn't
address whether or not he should be
given a cash settlement. This happened
in Ontario Canada, and the man's medical
bills are covered by the provincial
health system. No one will be out of
pocket for that. At least not for the
emergency and medium term care.

Nonsense. Everybody in the province will be out of pocket for that.

Or did you think the money appears by magic?

"Tanus" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
"Nova" wrote in message
news:Qbqjj.8422$sA6.2895@trndny08...
Leon wrote:

Compensation is the key word here. Compensation in these type
instances are normally cash settlements on top of medical expenses.
Medical expenses are not normally considered compensation.

I believe workman's comp covers medical expenses and lost wages only.


That could be true now but in the past it did limit the liability and an
employee could not sue the employer. IIRC the limit of damages beyond
the medical was $100K.

it's been a while since I dealt with these cases but about 10 years ago,
having Workman's Compensa
tion in Ontario nullified the right to sue the employer. I'm guessing it's
the same now, but I could be wrong.

Similar here however Workman's comp would pay up to $100K IIRC for the
losses.

On Jan 17, 7:30*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:


Nonsense. Everybody in the province will be out of pocket for that.

Or did you think the money appears by magic?

Miller is off his meds again....

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Tanus wrote:

Just as an aside, and this doesn't
address whether or not he should be
given a cash settlement. This happened
in Ontario Canada, and the man's medical
bills are covered by the provincial
health system. No one will be out of
pocket for that. At least not for the
emergency and medium term care.

Nonsense. Everybody in the province will be out of pocket for that.

Or did you think the money appears by magic?

I'm not falling into this silly debate.
I'm sure you know what I meant.

--
Tanus

This is not really a sig.

http://www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:37:21 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

Someone who deliberately bypasses safety devices has the right to do
so, but does NOT have the right to compensation if he gets injured.

Here in the UK it would be almost unheard of for a worker to lose any
right to benefits because of a missing guard.

First of all, the _employer_ has significant duties here. If there's an
accident, the first port of call is the body responsible for the
workshop, not the individual. And in most cases, that;s just where we
ought to be looking. It's not usually the _worforce_ who are chooisng to
use an ancient machine with broken or missing guards on it.

Mind you, we seem to have no ability to make any such charges stick 8-(
Even after major rail crashes.

Secondly, even if the machine operator has been caught hacksawing off
the guard themselves, they're unlikely to lose any right to injury
benefits over their actions.

"Andy Dingley" wrote

Secondly, even if the machine operator has been caught hacksawing off
the guard themselves, they're unlikely to lose any right to injury
benefits over their actions.

Offhand, I can't recall the relevant section of the Health & Safety at Work
act, but there is a clear duty of an employee to comply with measures
implemented by the employer.

There have been successful prosections for failure to do so.

Respectfully,

Jeff

--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
email : Username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
www.amgron.clara.net

Jeff Gorman wrote:
"Andy Dingley" wrote


Secondly, even if the machine operator has been caught hacksawing off
the guard themselves, they're unlikely to lose any right to injury
benefits over their actions.


Offhand, I can't recall the relevant section of the Health & Safety at Work
act, but there is a clear duty of an employee to comply with measures
implemented by the employer.

There have been successful prosections for failure to do so.

Respectfully,

Jeff


In the US OSHA does not site individuals:

http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/worker/responsible.html

The employee is expected to follow safety rules but is the employer's
responsibility to ensure the rules are enforced.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA