An Old Man Takes his Lump(s)
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 | 0
We have often discussed the disconnect between the roughly 100-year-old workers' comp system and the realities of today's workforce. The old system was not designed to handle older
Given his permanent total disability, Brock was awarded benefits of $163.67 per week for 450 weeks. He requested and was granted a lump-sum settlement which totaled about $75,000, minus what had already been paid, for a revised total of $53,000. Using actuarial tables for life expectancy, the workers' comp commission further reduced the lump sum to $32,000
The Mississippi Court of Appeals rejected Brock's claim, citing Mississippi Code Annotated Section 71-3-37(10):
Whenever the [C]ommission determines that it is for the best interests of a person entitled to compensation, the liability of the employer for compensation, or any part thereof as determined by the [C]ommission, may be discharged by the payment of a lump sum equal to the present value of future compensation payments commuted, computed at four percent (4%) true discount compounded annually. The probability of the death of the injured employee or other person entitled to compensation shall be determined in accordance with validated actuarial tables or factors as the [C]ommission finds equitable and consistent with the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Law. [emphasis added in appeals court decision]
The appeals court noted that the language of the law is unambiguous: the commission "shall apply validated actuarial tables..." Hence, despite Brock's apparent good health and his already beating the prevailing odds on mortality, the lump sum was discounted substantially because of his age.
New Realities of the Working World
The Mississippi statute, like those of other states, does not contemplate the dilemma of a 79-year-old disabled worker. Nor do these various statutes take into account the precarious state of the rapidly aging American workforce, where post-employment prospects are exceedingly dim. Retirement is hardly an option for people who lack the substantial resources necessary for retirement. Von Brock continued working because he needed the money; once disabled, he needed workers' comp to fill in the gap. Unfortunately, the "mortal coil" of age finally caught up with him: his working days are over.
Even if Brock had prevailed, the nest egg represented by the maximum lump-sum settlement would only have covered his expenses for a few years; as it is, he now walks away with a substantially lower amount. While his former employer Walmart continues to offer discounts to bring in the customers, workers' comp offers a discount that substantially reduces his ability to survive. Mr. Brock is in the vanguard of a multitude of aging workers in a dire situation. We wish them all the best of luck.
Comments