Poll: Should His Employer Have To Pay?
An Indiana appeals court upheld a ruling that a pizza restaurant should pay for their employee's weight loss surgery. The court ruled that it falls under the worker's compensation policy.
In 2007, 25-year old Adam Childers (who was a cook at the restaurant) was injured when a freezer door hit him in the back. At the time Childers weighed 340 pounds. In the months that followed, it was determined that he needed spinal fusion surgery to repair the damage done to his back. By this time his weight had increased to 380 pounds due to inactivity from his back pain.
Childers' doctors determined that the surgery had a high risk of failure because of his weight. They recommended he get lap-band surgery first, which could possibly help him avoid back surgery altogether if he lost enough weight and his pain subsided.
The workers compensation board found that Childers was entitled to the surgery (as well as disability payments while he wasn't working), while the restaurant argued that his weight was a pre-existing condition that should not be covered. The Indiana appeals court ruled that Childers was unable to exercise due to the injury, he did not have any issues before the accident, and that he was unsuccessful at losing weight by other methods. (Hmm...I wonder if anyone referred him to SparkPeople.)
Although it's illegal to discriminate against someone based on size, this ruling could make employers rethink hiring overweight employees- especially if the job carries a risk of injury.
What do you think? Should his employer have to cover the cost of his lap-band surgery?
In 2007, 25-year old Adam Childers (who was a cook at the restaurant) was injured when a freezer door hit him in the back. At the time Childers weighed 340 pounds. In the months that followed, it was determined that he needed spinal fusion surgery to repair the damage done to his back. By this time his weight had increased to 380 pounds due to inactivity from his back pain.
Childers' doctors determined that the surgery had a high risk of failure because of his weight. They recommended he get lap-band surgery first, which could possibly help him avoid back surgery altogether if he lost enough weight and his pain subsided.
The workers compensation board found that Childers was entitled to the surgery (as well as disability payments while he wasn't working), while the restaurant argued that his weight was a pre-existing condition that should not be covered. The Indiana appeals court ruled that Childers was unable to exercise due to the injury, he did not have any issues before the accident, and that he was unsuccessful at losing weight by other methods. (Hmm...I wonder if anyone referred him to SparkPeople.)
Although it's illegal to discriminate against someone based on size, this ruling could make employers rethink hiring overweight employees- especially if the job carries a risk of injury.
What do you think? Should his employer have to cover the cost of his lap-band surgery?
![]() You will earn 3 SparkPoints |























Comments
- 4/24/2013 4:27:09 PM
I broke my leg at work 6 years ago yesterday and my former employer still hasn't paid the bills and right now I am stuck with close to $40,000 in medical bills. Hopefully he is able to get some type of compensation. - 3/16/2013 11:38:00 PM
And while the employee most likely was not exercising before the accident, his extra weight gain was a secondary cause to his injury. But he should lose the weight by another means.
My SIL said her doctor wanted her to get the surgery but she needed to lose weight before it could be done. Well, if she'd be successful to lose weight before having surgery, why not keep doing what she's doing? Duh! I don't understand - 1/25/2013 10:52:42 AM
Overweight and obese individuals ARE discriminated against regularly because there are no federal laws to protect against it. IF I'm wrong, please cite the source. - 10/21/2012 1:59:52 PM
.....perhaps I can sue my company to make them pay for Botox....stress does cause wrinkles..... - 8/29/2012 10:28:27 AM
From a purely logical standpoint, back surgery is much more expensive than the lap band. For the employee to have to undergo multiple back surgeries due to his weight, the company would loose more money. The lap band has about a 50% success rate, whereas the success rate for an obese person is around 15%. You can't separate the weight and the back pain. One directly effects the other. - 7/25/2012 8:50:11 AM
What the employee needs to do before getting that back surgery, in my opinion, is on him. He had a weight issue before the accident. - 5/9/2012 7:57:27 AM
This surgery may be a quick fix for him, but it won't be a forever fix unless he is taught to eat properly, exercise, and deal with whatever issues he had that got him to 300+ pounds. - 4/18/2012 1:16:54 PM
He was hurt at work. I agree with the court rulings, based on what we know. - 3/10/2012 8:08:30 AM
1. He already weighed 340. That extra 40 pounds didn't add all THAT much to his risk in surgery. He was already high risk.
2. As someone else said, back surgery almost never helps, and often causes even more pain down the road. The sensible thing for him to do is to lose weight and begin exercising. I agree with the people who said that a reasonable compromise might be for his employer to pay for a dietician and personal trainer, but I don't think they should have to pay even for that if he doesn't put in the work to make it work. I'm overweight, too, and it is nobody's "fault" but my own. Too bad, so sad. You want it fixed, fix it yourself.
3. I'm also not a fan of the weight loss surgeries--any of them. Have you seen the diet you have to follow for these things to keep working? If you skipped the surgery and didn't eat any more than that, you would lose weight anyway--a few tablespoons of food at a time, no carbonated beverages, etc etc
4. I'm with whoever said that we are way too sue-happy in this society, and I'm tired of things that are within the control of the person being considered to be "disabilities". If you are paralyzed and in a wheelchair because of it, that is a disability. If you are blind or deaf, that is a disability. If you are overweight, alcoholic, drug addicted, etc--that is ultimately in your control, no matter how difficult that control might be. It is NOT a disability, and I rather resent being labeled "mentally ill" because I haven't taken control of my own destiny. I know people who really are mentally ill, and it is NOT in their control. Let's leave the Politically Correct View of Everything We Don't Want Personal Responsibility For behind us, and get on with being normal, fallible human beings. - 2/15/2012 5:19:16 PM
I am overweight. It is my fault. I think the opposite ruling should have happened. The company doesn't have to pay for the back surgery until the employee loses the weight. The article even said that losing weight may fix the issue. I feel sorry for the guy, but America is going down the drain because no one thinks anything is their own fault.
Sorry for the rant. Have a great day. - 11/4/2011 8:44:31 AM
But I agree that, though weight discrimination is illegal, businesses will find ways to avoid hiring obese people if they fear they will be faced with additional health insurance costs. - 10/5/2011 10:43:03 AM
You pay for it, or take your lunch box. Get catch eating in the kitchen that's grounds to get fired! - 5/30/2011 1:15:10 PM
So they should pay for required visits to a dietitian, and possibly a personal trainer who is versed in back injuries... - 5/3/2011 9:40:12 AM
Its disappointing to hear your remarks when were all trying to lose weight or we wouldn't be on this site!! - 3/31/2011 9:17:54 AM
Please Log In To Leave A Comment: Log in now ›