« Larry, we hardly knew ye! | Main | A Rogue Gallery »
He said she said
by anna at 06:55 PM on April 30, 2003
So I'm reviewing this claim to ensure that it meets company standards. It says something like this: The claimant Maria S. was assigned to oversee a group home where eight mentally retarded persons reside. Normally they all go to their day programs each morning but on this day, one refused. After the rest of them had left, Maria asked him if it was his birthday. He says, "Yeah I turned 21 today." She asks him if wants a present while undoing the buttons on her blouse. He says, "Well, sure." Next thing you know he's bending her over an ottoman and ravaging her.
Now you might be wondering how on Earth this could possibly qualify her for worker's comp benefits. Well, she claimed that her mentally challenged charge had raped her. Neither the police detective nor our own investigator bought into her dubious tale. No charges were filed. Hospital records didn't show any evidence of forcible action. There were two other persons present, both of whom said they'd heard moans emanating from the back bedroom. The alleged perpetrator didn't flee. Maria had a history of erratic behavior and had been reprimanded for it.
Naturally we slammed the door in her face. End of story? Hardly. She hired an attorney to pursue her claim. He in turn referred her to a shrink who recounted her bogus story and affirmed that she was indeed disabled for life. Post-traumatic stress, don't you know. Never mind that by all accounts she'd not only initiated the wild thing but enjoyed it immensely too. Hell, who wouldn't?
Here's the twist: Whatever happened went down in Washington DC, perhaps the most liberal jurisdiction in the country. DC law dictates that there is a presumption that any malady a worker claims is related to the work injury. If you fail to rebut this presumption, you're screwed. Which means our lawyers must prove she wasn't raped by this retarded guy.
We've checked out our star witness. His IQ is 80. He's got a long rap sheet, mostly for petty crimes but no sexual assault cases. He's on multiple meds. Not what you'd call an ideal witness. My company is going to take it up the ass on this one.
So if you want to hop aboard the worker's comp gravy train, move to DC. Secure a job working with disabled folks. Seduce one of them and then claim he or she raped you. Hook up with a sleazy attorney and doctor and you're in business. You'll collect up to $1,022 weekly for life, tax-free with automatic COLA adjustments. What a deal!
Of course faking psychological problems for financial gain is nothing new. 20% of Social Security Disability recipients sustained no physical injury at all. Until a few years ago being a drunk or a junkie would qualify you. Which is part of the reason few of you will ever see a dime of the money you've poured down the Social Security rathole.
Don't get me wrong though. I'm not trying to trivialize true mental illness or rape. I myself am psychotic, you could ask Ezy who visited my home recently. It's just that scammers like Maria make it much tougher for legitimate victims to prove their cases. One bad apple spoils the whole bunch.
comments (10)
This is terrible. Not just for your company and the system that is set up to enable cheaters but also for the disabled.
Something else; you say he's on meds without really specifying which types.
I'm assuming at least one of them is an anti-depressant. If that were the case he would have a reduced libido and practically no sex drive depending on the type he takes (Paxil, Prozac, Risperdal aka Risperidone are among the most frequently prescribed meds that reduce or eliminate the sex drive).
If he takes Ritalin or Methylphenidate - coupled with an anti-depressant - the act would be virtually impossible to complete with any resistance from the other party.
I'm guessing for answers to help you out...unfortunately without all the pertinent information, that's all it is, a guess.
If he has an IQ of 80, I would reason that he thinks as a child and therefore is not capable of making informed decisions and initiating contact. If she is found to be lying (which I'm guessing she is) she should be charged with forced sexual contact, abusing her position as a care provider and whatever else they can throw at her.....regardless of how pleasurable the act may have been for the (male) victim.
by Nancy at April 30, 2003 7:39 PM
I will comment on this post, after I go to Mcdonald's, but the topic reminded of your last post about scamming, and POPEYE's, and how you were in a Fury over POPEYE's Customer Service, and I told my brother that I hated going to the Mcdonald's because of the Incompetence, and he set me straight by telling me, THAT"s the BEST PART...what do you expect, it's a Mcdonald's, that's what you pay for... and I had to agree, I find myself agreeing, I will never complain about the service at Fastfood chains again, because goddamnit, I want INCOMPETENCE if i'm going to pay to SHOVE SHIT IN MY MOUTH. So, you know what, GOD BLESS that employee at POPEYE's, who didn't know CHICKEN from BEEF, and GOD BLESS every fucking lazyfuck who somehow finds Immaculate Employment. Gonna buy some dollar menu shit, and possibly some filet-o-fish action.
by LOCKHEED at April 30, 2003 8:37 PM
Does this then open up another can of worms in civil suits? I have much to say on this post, I will wait to see what other's think about this PTSD scamming...
by LOCKHEED at April 30, 2003 9:11 PM
Interesting story. It's fairly amazing what people who work in those jobs can get away with, largely because the people that they do it to are incapable of providing evidence against them.
I'm working on a case right now of a woman who was the trustee for the funds of a number of people like the fellow you mention. This lady had joint accounts with them and work cheques on their behalf. It seems that for a number of years she was depositing cheques into her personal account that she had drawn on the joint account. She would just leave the payee line blank, and when the cheques came back (to her, which was the biggest mistake of the agency) she would just fill in the name of a legitimate business, like it was paid to them, and not to her.
She was only caught when the agency did an audit, and a astute auditor noticed that the cheques had markings on them that showed they had been deposited at an ATM. Businesses of course do not use ATMs for deposits. Further checks of the endorsements showed that the cheques went into her account, and the jig was up.
Looks like she bought her house with the money.
Of course the point that the agencies involve intentionally overlook is that with proper safeguards in place (whether its a second person around or proper accounting procedures in place) this type of thing would never get past first base. Ultimately the agency doesn't pay the bill in the end.
In your case its your comapany that pays the bill. In my case her house sales proceeds will pay the bill. Of course if she had just gambled the money away then the people here would just be out the money...
by ChuckWoolery at May 1, 2003 11:03 AM
Oops...
"wrote cheques on their behalf" not work... geez a little proofreading would have caught that...
by ChuckWoolery at May 1, 2003 11:05 AM
Why is that it's some dumb bitch trying to get a free lunch in both cases? I'll make the bitch work. "...I'm not trying to trivialize mental illness or rape. I myself am psychotic..." classic. So basically, it's not worth it for you guys to get a Second Opinion by another Psychiatrist? That would be an ace that you can keep.
...you never count your money, when you're sittin at the table...
by LOCKHEED at May 1, 2003 4:45 PM
I imagine the company can still fight it right?
Of course at this point the economic analysis comes in.... it costs us X to pay her and cost us about y to pay our lawyers and fight her in court...
x
Of course the videotape thing works much better for back or other physical injuries.... PTSD, I dunno what she would have to do to get cut off....
maybe catching her singing a happy song....
zippidee doo dah, zippidee day, oh what a feeling, oh what a day,
plenty of sunshine, coming my way, zippidee doo dah, zippidee day....
by ChuckWoolery at May 1, 2003 5:42 PM
Huh, the formula didn't come through, must be some coding thing....
anyway the word version of the code was...
if x is less than y then pay...
by ChuckWoolery at May 1, 2003 5:44 PM
Lock, a second opinion is problematic since the doctor takes a history and must record it as it's told. And Chuck, you're right about the video option. PTSD claims don't lend themselves to that approach. We tried it once and the guy got suspicious. He then added paranoia over being followed to his litany if complaints. You can't win.
by Anna at May 1, 2003 6:10 PM
I wanna live in your country! Is it REALLY so easy to make a fraud work?
All my life I've been dreaming of a fraud and I've thought of some really fraudy acts I would perform but I'm quite sure I'll get caught (and tried and imprisoned too).
If anyone can get away with stuff like lying about rape etc, you're living in paradise...
by necropethamenos at May 2, 2003 3:33 AM