When the manager refused Marazas’ request, Marazas informed his manager that he was unable to work under such conditions, according to records. He then proceeded to resign by turning in his keys and company phone. The manager then told Maraza she would escort him to remove his personal belongings from his company truck.
Shortly after removing items from the truck, Maraza tripped over a pallet jack located on the company’s premises. The manager involved in the case, witnessed Maraza fall and injure his left side. Records show that when Maraza called the manager a few days after the incident in order to request a physician referral, he was told that the company only provides physicians for active employs. Maraza then filed a civil suit, seeking liability for his fall.
The company argued that Marazas was working at the time of fall, and therefore workers compensation was the only option for his injuries, filings shows. Marazas then withdrew his lawsuit and filed a workers compensation claim for injuries to the left side of his body, including his ankle, knee, and back.
The court also found that employment termination doesn’t bar workers compensation benefits when a worker is still acting under an employer’s direction on the employer’s premises. The ruling states that although Marazas resigned prior to being injured, he was still under the scope of employment because he was acting under the company’s direction and therefore furthering their interests.
Worker’s in a similar situation, or those who have questions regarding their eligibility to receive workers compensation benefits are encouraged to speak with an attorney who has experience dealing with workers compensation claims. Choosing a lawyer who understands the nuances of worker’s compensation laws and practices is imperative.