Chimp Attack Workers Comp – You’ve Got to Be Kidding

We all remember the horrific chimp attack on the Connecticut woman, Charla Nash, she reportedly went to visit her friend, when the chimp when out of control, tearing off her face. How can we forget the major injuries she sustained, now she finds herself in a quandary – the workers comp quandary.

Nash’s family filed a $50 million lawsuit against Sandra Herold, owner of the chimp – Travis. Now the other shoe drops – Ms. Herold and her attorney are claiming that this is a work related injury and Ms. Nash is only entitled to workers compensation benefits.

After I stopped laughing, I had to evaluate the merits of this case, for me it was quite simple – this is not workers comp. But I am going to give Ms. Herold and her attorney the benefits of being very smart and putting Ms. Nash in a position that may force her to file a workers compensation claim. Transferring their exposure to the comp system.

In Connecticut, Ms. Nash has to file a claim within one year of the alleged accident, if not she may be barred from filing a claim. So her choice, go ahead with her civil lawsuit or file a workers comp claim – if she does not file the claim and she looses the civil suit Ms. Herold gets away without any financial liability. This seems unfair and a cute way of manipulating the law.

Let’s take this one step further – could Ms. Herold and her attorney really convince someone that this was work related? Do they meet the workers comp burden? Can they answer these questions?

Was she in the course and scope of her employment – well Ms. Herold is alleging that Ms Nash worked for her towing company and Travis – the chimp was apart of her team. Travis was the company mascot and Ms. Nash took care of him as her regular job duties. Does this make her injuries work related? This is a test that Ms. Herold and her attorney will have to overcome.

Did the insurance carrier who insures Ms. Herold’s towing company know that the chimp was there? Did they assess the risk the chimp could pose for employees? Did they agree to insure that risk? If not this area of the “work” process may not meet the underwriting guidelines for the insurance carrier.

I could keep going but why bother, Ms. Herold and her attorney has managed to use the workers comp system to their own benefit – now the carrier will have to defend themselves against this case. In my opinion, Ms. Herold may have inadvertently sabotaged her case when she was interviewed by reporters after the incident happened – she said according to media reports that Ms. Nash came over to visit – now she says, she was an employee when she arrived at my house – you can’t have it both ways.