Doing some research, need input Brothers....

[RFDGloWorm]

OK guys and girls, need some help with a homework assignment; does anyone know of a member that was injured (or worse) during the course of their duties and then denied benefits, workmen's comp, or an insurance claim because part of their gear wasn't "issued to them", rather bought with their own money?

Trying to determine if this is a myth or reality. Some believe that as long as said equipment meets or exceeds the same standard as the equipment the department purchases, then everything is cool. The other side feels that the only equipment allowed to be worn is that which is issued to them by their department, to avoid claims or benefits denial.

Tell me the stories or court cases if you know of any....Thanks!!

[Dickey]

Oh boy....this might get interesting.

[RFDGloWorm]

Oh boy....this might get interesting.

And I'm not trying to start something....it's legit research!!!

[LVFD301]

I am pulling up a chair, popping some popcorn, this is going to be GREAT!

[snowball]

Haven't heard of that here.

[ADSNWFLD]

Haven't heard of that here.
What I could see is based on your rules and regs. If a guy had regular leather gloves that his supervisor allowed him to wear and his hands were burnt, I could see the officer and firefighter being disciplined, but I would think the claim would be covered.

[RFDGloWorm]

I am pulling up a chair, popping some popcorn, this is going to be GREAT!

I figured some people would chime in on this, guess I was wrong.

[snowball]

I figured some people would chime in on this, guess I was wrong.

It's probably not as common as you would think it would be. If I'm not mistaken, OSHA, would have to be involved, and typically departments don't want them involved purely because if their member was at fault the department gets fined.

I think most departments, depending on the severity of the injury, would tell the member to wear the issued ppe and let comp handle it. It would definitely get sticky in the case of an LODD where the big investigative tool box is opened up.

[RFDACM02]

I figured some people would chime in on this, guess I was wrong.

I'd be surprised if you found many incidents of this actually taking place. The denial of benefits has always been a reason for administrations to force compliance on chosen issues (like leather hats) and then ignored on others (like staffing).

Having just spoken to our state office of insurance recently on a question about when a company can deny a claim, I was enlightened as to how difficult it is to get a claim denied. Clearly this doesn't include your typical healthcare benefits.

[GTRider245]

I'd be surprised if you found many incidents of this actually taking place. The denial of benefits has always been a reason for administrations to force compliance on chosen issues (like leather hats) and then ignored on others (like staffing).

Having just spoken to our state office of insurance recently on a question about when a company can deny a claim, I was enlightened as to how difficult it is to get a claim denied. Clearly this doesn't include your typical healthcare benefits.

Hell of a good point right there.