Workers Comp Form with Medical History

I was actually roommates with someone in College whose parents decided to have him “off-grid”. Let me just say this: Stop even entertaining the idea of having a baby off-grid. It really makes your child’s life unnecessarily hard and your kid will forever resent you for putting that pain on them.I’ll get into the details in a moment, but first let me address the question proposed above. Yes, technically speaking it is not a crime to have your baby off-the-grid in the U.S.A. However, a lot of details surrounding the event would be illegal. First of all, any licensed midwife or doctor is required by law to file a birth certificate or they actually risk losing their license and getting a misdemeanor. If you forced them or threatened them to not file the birth certificate that would make you a likely accomplice and would not go over well with the authorities.But let’s ignore that for a moment and just assume you know how to birth a child on your own and can do it in your basement without any professional medical physician there to oversee you (which would be the only way you could pull this off). In this case you wouldn’t get thrown in jail for failing to get a birth certificate and no crime would have been committed. However you just set up a very difficult life for your child.These are some of the things I was told from by my roommate who didn’t have a social security number until he was 20 years old.No, he could not get a (legal) jobQuite literally he didn’t qualify to get even a job at McDonalds. If you remember the last job you got no matter how prestigious or demeaning it was, you had to fill out a bunch of paperwork. Most of these forms require you to have a SSN (social security number) to properly fill them out. However the important one is the form labeled I-9. This form is required to be submitted by every employer after hiring a new employee. This form serves only one purpose, to determine that you are eligible to work in the United States. Your child (and my roommate) would not be able to complete this form which every employer must get filled out before starting employment with a new employee. Your child will not be able to get a job because of this.Yes, he can evade paying taxes.Okay, so this sounds like a perk I guess. But my roommate did not have to pay taxes. The government basically didn’t know he existed, so they never knew he was not paying. But then again he didn’t have a job. So would you rather have a job and pay some taxes or not ever be able to work except under the table for below minimum wage? Given that choice, taxes sound pretty awesome! Keep in mind that this also means your child is not eligible for any tax benefits or credits such as those that students get while going to college.No, You as the parent can not claim him as a dependent on your taxesYou’re already dealing with a child, wouldn’t it be great to get that child tax credit? Every year you'll basically be paying out of pocket for deciding not to get them a SSN.Yes, he can attend public school through 12th gradeHe would be able to attend school through high school without a social security number.No, he can not attend collegeWhile high school and lower education is okay, your child will never be able to attend collegeYes, he can go to the doctorThe doctor will still see your child and provide him his shots. However…No, he will not be covered under your family insurance (or qualify for Medicare/Medicaid)So you’ll need to plan on paying for all doctor appointments out of pocket.No, he can not travel abroad (even to Canada)You’d best hope none of your child’s friends decide to go to Cancun for spring break. Your child will not be eligible to leave the country or return to the US if he manages to leave (unless he plans to climb Trump’s wall)No, he will not be able to drive a carOkay, well nothing is stopping him from physically driving a car, but he would not be able to get a driver’s license and thus, can not LEGALLY drive. Hope he doesn’t get pulled over.No, he will not be able to voteOnce old enough he will not be able to register to vote.Yes, he can avoid the draftWell the good news is that like taxes, he can skirt the requirement to join the draft when he turns 18.No, he can’t get a loanThis means no credit cards, no car loan, no home, nothing. I’m sure plenty of people will claim these are all evil anyway, but these have powerful impacts on someone’s life. There might be times he needs it. (and when used properly none of these are bad things).No, he will not have a credit scoreThis goes with the above one, but he will not be able to work on this which affects your entire life/future. This also will disqualify him from renting most homes or apartments he is looking at.Basically your child will be treated as an illegal immigrant. Why put them through this when they are entitled to the benefits that the United States provides its citizens? There are people in other countries dying to get what your child is entitled to and you are (considering) denying your child those abilities? It just doesn’t make sense.Get them a SSN and if your child decides at 20 that he wants to live off-the-grid than he can burn his Social Security Card and go in the woods and hide from the government. But don’t be selfish enough to make that decision for them.My roommate resents his parents for not giving him a SSN. While all his friends in high school were driving, he couldn’t. While his friends go to Cancun for spring break, he had golden handcuffs in the U.S. and can’t leave. And worst of all he said was that while all his friends were earning money from jobs in high school, he couldn’t get a job.The job part was the hardest for him. He couldn’t leave the house or move out when he turned 18. He was stuck at home.Him working on getting a social security number was difficult and took him two years. He started when he turned 18 to get one once he realized he couldn’t go to college, he couldn’t get a job, he couldn’t rent an apartment, and thus will never really be able to be independent from his parents. It took two years and then at 20 he was able to get one and start working and going to school.He forever resented his parents. Don’t be those parents…

Thanks for your question. First of all, Canada does not have completely “free healthcare,” (we “pay” indirectly through our income taxes, of course, among other sources) nor do we have “socialized healthcare” like the U.K. Our universal healthcare is more like a nationwide group insurance policy that benefits from huge economies of scale and the efficient use of resources that follows from a more planned, centralized approach, and our doctors are not employed by the government. They have their private practices or are employed by hospitals, and bill the government per service.Our healthcare is as mentioned partly subsidized by income taxes, and then each province or territory has other means of funding their own system. For example, in Ontario, most alcohol sales are controlled by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, and their revenue is one of the chief sources of funding for our provincial system (amounting to $2+ billion as of 2017–18).Each province or territory then receives a transfer payment from the federal government. The provinces have a certain degree of freedom to deliver the services that best suit their needs, but there are limits to this. To receive their federal transfer payment they must adhere to the five core principles set out in the Canada Health Act. These are: Public administration; universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility.Canada’s taxes per capita are comparable to U.S. tax rates, by the way, not signNowly higher.Costs of drugs are considerably lower, because the provincial governments negotiate directly with drug companies (economies of scale). A nationwide prescription drug plan is planned to roll out in 2022.Canadian hospitals are not public, but 95% are non-profit organizations and are bound by strict budgets.Canadians are guaranteed free care for medically necessary procedures and tests and surgical dentistry. This means that care not deemed necessary by each province may be charged for or involve co-pay.Regular dental care outside of a hospital setting is generally not covered, except for the very young and for seniors; people have private insurance or insurance through work for dental care. (My personal opinion is that the lack of coverage for dental care is a signNow flaw in the system, and should be addressed. However, when I needed urgent wisdom tooth surgery twenty years ago, my surgery took place in hospital, under general anesthetic, and therefore the costs were completely covered.)Medications mostly involve a small co-pay, but a doctor can also admit a patient to hospital, in which case the drugs are free. Each province has its own program for medications and list of drugs covered. These programs are usually geared to your income after tax. For example, there are usually different programs for Seniors (65+), people on social welfare, diabetics, those needing expensive drugs (e.g. HIV-related illnesses or palliative care) and even over-the-counter meds if your doctor states they are necessary. Co-pay is often only $2 per prescription. Where there is an exact equivalent generic version of a drug, this is provided as they are normally a lot cheaper. However, if you have had adverse reactions to generics, they will provide the brand name versions.Also let’s address the topic of wait times, often given as a reason that Canada’s system is “broken.”Our system is not broken. One of the ways we keep costs down and are fiscally conservative is by limiting supply of elective and non-essential procedures. Sure Americans might get a hip replacement or MRI scan a bit faster, but with the result that their health care costs are much higher. (Americans also ration healthcare: with high fees. Unfortunately, this amounts to limiting demand, but health care isn’t something you can decide not to have— if you need heart surgery you need heart surgery. No one in Canada will ever go bankrupt because of medical bills, because there essentially aren’t any.)We could reduce wait times if that was our primary goal. It’s not.So the answer is: Through efficient use of taxes, by covering only medically necessary procedures and drugs, by rationing supply of non-necessary procedures, by negotiating drug prices at the provincial level and by not running on a for-profit basis, but on a strict budget.No system is perfect, but I’m grateful for my country’s system. I have always received excellent care and can’t imagine living without this. It’s part of the Canadian identity, really.

Had to go anonymous because of pending legal litigation… I work at a big shipping company on the east coast. The company has a fleet of ships and barges for transporting goods all over the world. The staff is more or less all white. When someone retired, a position for a senior-level position was open. I was the executive in charge of filling the position. When going through the interviews, a younger African American man came and interviewed for the position. He was perfect and highly qualified for the position. He got the position right on the spot. He would start in a week, and the CEO was very happy we were adding diversity to the workplace.The kid started a week later, he hit the ground running. Not everyone in the company was as satisfied with him as I was. He got things done on time and efficiently. He was a good worker. The only blemish was he took a lunch that was supposed to be an hour, but took two. I reminded him that lunch is only one hour, and he needed to abide by the time. He agreed and we didn’t have another problem for awhile.Our company has a policy that before you log onto a computer, you need to sign a release every six months that allows your account to be reviewed if need be. On the first day, he got a weird virus that needed the help of four of the IT staff to clean the computer. No one thought anything of it, how could it be his fault? About two weeks went by, and it happened again. On the very same day, he came in acting like he was on drugs. I let him leave to go the ER, because he said he might have the flu. He called the office about an hour later saying he left his wallet in his desk, and needed his insurance number. The person who opened his desk accidentally opened the wrong drawer, and found two guns, and $50,000 in cash. The staff member have him the insurance information, stayed calm, then came to me with what he found.After I found out what was in the desk, I knew the viruses were not random. I had IT bring up his account on a secure computer, and found that he was getting his work done, while also scheduling drug deals on his lunch break on a website, which later turned out to be the source of the viruses. We also went through the desk, which was completely legal to do because of work polices which this individual signed. In the desk, the final tally was four guns, $96,000 in cash, and a very small amount of marijuana. We found in his emails that he had a drug deal during his first lunch break, which apparently ran long, hence the long lunch break on the first day.The next day he returned to a box of his things on his desk, and the business card of the detective that picked up his guns, money and marijuana, along with his computer hard drive, which could be picked up at any time at the local police precinct. The employee was perfect, except for his long lunch break on his very first day.

I feel compelled to answer this question, because I disagree with most of the answers here.The common answer here seems to be: yes it will kill jobs, but only the jobs low on the food chain, and it will create more jobs to at least offset the jobs it does kill.I disagree. I think AI will kill jobs, and over time, AI might kill most “jobs” as we know them. I think that people are somewhat complacent in regard to the economic impact of AI, and will likely be ill-prepared for the changes we have to adapt to in the not-so-distant future.First, let's start with the comparisons to machinery and automation. They did indeed put factory workers out of work. In that respect, I agree AI today is similar in many applications, replacing workers who have less specialized skills, perhaps call center operators, office assistants (in a limited extent), and maybe soon, taxi drivers and truck drivers. But I would argue that AI is fundamentally different from machinery or most of the other analogies commonly made when answering this question, because AI is growing and is unlikely to stop growing. It's growing in breadth (of applications and industries), in geographic and economic scope, and in power (it's capacity to address increasingly complex tasks). A more fitting analogy would be machinery in an automobile plant that not only made the parts one day, but then learned how to assemble them the week after, and then how to design cars a year later.I think that there is little that is out of signNow for advanced AI of the future. Let's leave the question of the AI singularity alone for now. Instead, I think that deep learning efforts at Google and elsewhere are making AI systems learn faster and faster, with a growing rate of acceleration. Advanced AI can now address increasingly complex tasks including medical diagnosis, stock market trading, weather prediction and human behavioral modeling. Very soon, it will be able to take the place of certain types of teachers, and find a role in education. It can already deal with complex systems in software and mathematics, and seems to be only limited in applications that require interactions with the physical world (sensors are still imperfect), and with people.So without projecting too far into the future, we can ask the question, what jobs will NOT be killed by AI? Jobs that involve labor are already (or soon to be) replaced. Jobs that require logical reasoning are being replaced, albeit at a slower rate. What are the qualities that humans have that cannot be captured by AI? Perhaps creativity, emotional responses? So perhaps researchers in academia will survive longer than most, and artists (though AI stylistic mimicry is already quite impressive and their results enjoyable), and counselors/psychologists/case workers, and decision makers like CEOs who cannot be predictable or error prone. And hopefully software engineers and algorithm designers who develop AI systems.This leaves a very, very small portion of today's jobs intact. Many say: we just need to train people to fill higher level jobs created by AI, e.g. Programmers, ML researchers. But this is no easy feat. The US educational system is struggling to meet the demands created by advanced technology today. This failure is in part responsible for the economic divide plaguing the country today. The challenge of educating the public for a job market that is both decreasing in scope and increasing in complexity, is nothing we've ever faced before.I am far from original in this opinion. But if I had to guess, I would say that AI will put far more people out of work than we can (re)train in time. That will have signNow economic repercussions as corporations seeking to minimize cost will do so at the cost of rising unemployment. There will need to be dramatic changes in social policies in order to avert large scale economic disaster, first dramatic rises in minimum wage, then eventually some type of universal income/welfare. It's the kind of change that requires signNow leadership in our government, something that seems woefully absent today.

Besides the obvious problems from confusion of using libertarians and prohibiting in the same sentence - the question raises an issue that could be a monstrous legal quagmire and dilemma.First both employment and insurance rely on the construct of discrimination.Employers discriminate in hiring based on qualifications to perform a specific job and other traits that might foretell employee performance. They already use a wide array of tests and indicators that while if not evaluating DNA directly are certainly attempting to measure the expression of DNA.Insurance underwriters discriminate on the basis of risk and characteristics that determine placement in a proper risk pool.Therefore, discrimination is of course a fact of life in a rational economic system.Second, if it is assumed that genetics or DNA of individuals and therefore presumably their family or ancestors will somehow be a tool to determine employment traits or insurance risk characteristics, then it raises the following questions.Can persons and/or members of their family be required to submit to DNA testing?What if one declines DNA testing for any number of reasons, perhaps religious? Can they be discriminated against simply for refusing the test?Who gets to decide the tester and that the results are verifiably accurate?Who owns the DNA test results? What are the limits of the ownership?Who or what determines the link between DNA and traits or risk and based on what provable criteria?And so forth.A more overarching question might be -If use of and belief in such genetic predisposition becomes normative and pervasive, are we entering a new era of eugenics where parents or families will attempt to engineer the genetics of their progeny for economic or other reasons?While libertarians have no monopoly on correct answers in this realm, we can put forth a few principles to guide things along.Libertarians generally agree-To prohibit coercionTo prohibit prohibitionWithin the context of those two constructs, issues generally must be decided on the basis of and respect for the principles of inalienable self-ownership.Thus as a general framework and a starting point, in regards to the use of DNA information, libertarians would only favor coerced prohibition of those acts that directly violate individual self-ownership or could reasonably be predicted would lead imminently to such violation.This precludes any generalizations about libertarian positions in advance of each issue that arises or might arise prior to their being examined in relevant context.Having said that, until proven otherwise, libertarians would generally start from the premise that one’s DNA and genetics properly belong in the category of all self-owned property over which the individual has absolute right of control.

Does Sony have a self-insured captive? Yes, it does. It's called PMG Assurance Ltd. Does Sony have a massive insurance business? Yes, it does.At least some of the data is likely to be related life insurance policies PMG Assurance and/or Sony Corp (parent) are writing. Per A.M. Best's report on PMG below, PMG "ceased writing life business effective Jan. 16, 2011". To the extent such life policies were sold to Sony employees and the "small amount of employee benefits coverage" are being provided by PMG for Sony employees going forward, per the press release below from A.M. Best, November 25, 2014, at least having some of this data is not surprising. How much unrelated and unnecessary medical data was retained re: its own employees? I have no idea.The captive is called PMG Assurance Ltd. See below from A.M. Best's report. A.M. Best is the equivalent of S&P, Moody's and Fitch for rating solvency and credit risks of (re)insurers and captives. A captive is a form of self-insurance and risk-retention. Many large companies have them. Tons of companies, small, large and medium have them for tax benefits and retention of underwriting profits and/or being able to charge the parent company lower premiums vs. 3rd party insurance carriers for certain coverages. It's possible that the data was used for and a byproduct of providing workers comp insurance as well as health insurance for its employees, but I would need to see the statutory financials if there are any, but public financials re: Sony parent should have some good info.If you read this NYT 2013 article re: hedge fund Third Point's activist campaign against Sony called "Sony’s Bread and Butter? It’s Not Electronics" (Page on nytimes.com), note Sony's massive presence in insurance:  (A) "Sony, it is suggested, might be better off just selling insurance. (B) "Although Sony sells hundreds of products as varied as batteries and head-mounted 3-D displays, it so happens that Sony’s most successful business is selling insurance. While it doesn’t run this business in the United States or Europe, Sony makes a lot of money writing life, auto and medical policies in Japan. (C) "Its financial arm accounts for 63 percent of Sony’s total operating profit last year. Life insurance has been its biggest moneymaker over the last decade, earning the company 933 billion yen ($9.07 billion) in operating profit in the 10 years that ended in March. (D) "Sony’s film and music divisions, which produced hits like the Spider-Man movies and “Zero Dark Thirty” and recorded musicians like the cellist Yo-Yo Ma and the electronic music duo Daft Punk, have contributed $7 billion to the company’s bottom line over the last decade."___________________________As A.M. Best states in its ratings report below, Sony's captive, PMG "...writes mostly proportional property and marine reinsurance business and ceased writing life business effective Jan. 16, 2011. However, going forward, PMG expects to add a small amount of employee benefits coverage."Press Release - NOVEMBER 25, 2014A.M. Best Affirms Ratings of PMG Assurance Ltd.CONTACTS: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEOLDWICK - NOVEMBER 25, 2014A.M. Best has affirmed the financial strength rating of A- (Excellent) and the issuer credit rating of "a-" of PMG Assurance Ltd. (PMG) (Bermuda). The outlook for both ratings is negative.The ratings reflect PMG's excellent capitalization, historically strong operating performance and strategic position as the captive insurance company for the Sony Group, whose ultimate parent is Sony Corporation (Sony) [NYSE: SNE]. PMG's role is to meet certain global insurance requirements of Sony Group members. Beginning in 2010, PMG did not renew nor participate in any form of non-related, third-party treaties. PMG continues its operations, but with a strategic change in underwriting directed fully toward Sony-related business as a "pure" captive.The company's strengths are derived from its underwriting focus, long-standing customer relationships and conservative operating strategy. PMG writes mostly proportional property and marine reinsurance business and ceased writing life business effective Jan. 16, 2011. However, going forward, PMG expects to add a small amount of employee benefits coverage. The company maintains a large exposure to earthquake-related losses in Japan due to its coverage of Sony's risks.Due to the nature of the relationship between PMG and Sony, the changes in Sony's credit risk profile have put pressure on PMG's ratings. PMG's success is reliant on Sony's ability to support its credit risk profile, competitiveness and risk management. The captive continues to be an integral component of Sony's risk management platform. A.M. Best's view of third-party credit ratings and market-based credit risk measures of Sony indicates negative rating pressure on PMG.Additionally, negative rating pressure might arise if there is any signNow downward movement in Sony's risk profile. Any upward rating movement is predicated on improvement in Sony's risk profile coupled with maintenance of PMG's capital strength.A.M. Best remains the leading rating agency of alternative risk transfer entities, with more than 200 such vehicles rated in the United States and throughout the world. For current Best's Credit Ratings and independent data on the captive and alternative risk transfer insurance market, please visit Captive Center.The methodology used in determining these ratings is Best's Credit Rating Methodology, which provides a comprehensive explanation of A.M. Best's rating process and contains the different rating criteria employed in the rating process. Best's Credit Rating Methodology can be found at RedirectorPage.Key insurance criteria reports utilized:Alternative Risk Transfer (ART)Risk Management and the Rating Process for Insurance CompaniesThe Treatment of Terrorism Risk in the Rating EvaluationUnderstanding Universal BCARThis press release relates to rating(s) that have been published on A.M. Best's website. For all rating information relating to the release and pertinent disclosures, including details of the office responsible for issuing each of the individual ratings referenced in this release, please visit Ratings & Criteria Center.A.M. Best Company is the world's oldest and most authoritative insurance rating and information source.

The only job interview I ever tried to fail was for a company that hired me anyway. It was an interview for a job bagging groceries at my town's local supermarket. It was not cool how it went down.The scene: small town in 1994. I'm a scrawny high school kid, long hair, in my Jim Morrison phase, and I need cash. Not for all the ladies I was taking on dates, because there weren't any of those, but for the red Fender Stratocaster I was soon to buy.I applied to the local supermarket chain in my little town. The interview went fine. A portly red-headed elf of a manager, Greg, peered over his glasses across his desk and judged me worthy. My last step was to fill out an "ethics" exam. The exam consisted of a dozen scenarios describing some ethical conundrum that might, in a hypothetical planet nothing like reality, confront the bag-boy at checkout stand #12. On each question, you are told that you have the power to choose one road or another, the outcome of which might harm or help yourself, a co-worker, or The Company. And you are supposed to indicate which path you choose.The scenarios were nuts. Really over-the-top. One of them, no exaggeration, was like:Your co-worker Stanley is a 91-year-old man whose 88-year-old wife, Shirley, suffers from diabetes. Stanley confides in you that he is having trouble paying for his wife's diabetes medication, and to make ends meet, he stole a sandwich from The Store's deli section. "It's just one sandwich," he says, through his tears. "They're a big rich company, and they'll never miss it."Do you report Stanley's theft to your manager?I remember my mouth hanging open with shock after reading it. Who the hell are these assholes? No, I'm not going to report the old man who stole a goddamn sandwich. Jesus, I'll help him steal a few dozen more if I can. I'll drive a station wagon through the store's front door and blow up the safe. Sign me up. I'm on your team, Stanley.But then I remembered the game I was playing. The Company probably wanted me to say I'd turn him in to the Gestapo and get him fired so the company would not lose money.But then... wait. That seemed a little obvious. They knew I would assume that, and they'd know I wouldn't think they'd really be such jerks, so they actually want me to answer no, I won't turn in Old Klepto Stanley.But then they'd know that I knew that they knew that I knew that they'd expect me... it turned into the poisoning scene from The Princess Bride. Surely you would not take the cup in front of you, because you'd know that I knew that you'd assume I was lying. And on and on. My brain hurt.Finally I was exhausted by the psych-out. I ended up deciding that they wanted me to say I'd report Stanley, but I didn't want the job anymore. I was annoyed at The Company for putting me through the stupid exercise. So I told the truth - Stanley was safe with me. I wanted to go listen to a little Hendrix. This place sucked.I ended up getting the job. Either I mis-judged them, or nobody bothered looking at the ethics exam in the end. Apparently I was an ace bag boy, and got promoted to cashier. Apparently I was an ace cashier, and got Employee of the Month. Photo on the wall by the recycling station and everything. They gave me a $5 gift card to a pizza place. Dynamite.

There are many excellent answers and I'll answer one from personal experience.After 12 years of professional experience, technical school, and thousands of hours of manufacturer training, I was hardly unskilled, but very specialized as a master certified Mercedes-Benz technician.Unlike 99.9 percent of my peers, I understood at a very early point in my career that there is an expiration date on specialized skills and the human body, so I took courses at a junior college part time for many years. Without an end date set in stone it allowed for taking courses I enjoyed, switching between English lit and business.When an injury did take me out of my career, it was not an immediate realization. I spent 6 months progressing from barely being able to get out of bed to destroying my self in physical therapy. Then the doctor declared me stable but not fit for duty. This switched my status to state disability as I was no longer going to be a technician, so I dove headfirst into a bachelor's program. The issue is that at the end of 6 month of workers comp and the 1 year limit on disability, that puts someone out of work for 18 months and makes them ineligible for unemployment. Had I just sat on my ass after getting fired I would have had another year of support beyond that, But since I got injured while working and went to school to retrain, I was being cut off. Ironic isn't it, that safety net programs seem to be designed more for the lazy than the motivated.I worked hard and finished 2 years worth of courses in 1 years to earn a BS in business administration with a 3.9 gpa. Guess what? College grads with no work experience were more employable simple because nothing on their resume said that they worked with a wrench for 12 years.Here's the kicker, I had leadership experience building effective teams, marketing experience putting together service programs after analyzing customer trends, production experience from monitoring KPIs and enacting action plans to improve performance. All those thing employers ask for, but don't get without experience.After 6 more months of fighting through a part time sales job, I finally got a lucky break. I worked for a market research company for automotive. Later I became an instructor for an automotive program with a manufacturer.Even now I still have to fight for even an ounce of consideration as a professional, even though I deal with validation of diagnostic software, b2b programs, and customer service. I'm excluded from finance meetings even though I'm the only person in the room with any education on the subject, and blown off by engineers when I aproach them with hard data on failures and design issues, simply because I worked with a wrench.I've got an SaaS concept, business plan with sales strategy and contacts, and a signNow portion of the necessary research and ux mapping completed. Now all I need to do is find a developer who can bring an MVP to the plate and my days with a wrench will no longer matter... I hope...The point I'm trying to make is that retraining takes signNow endurance and tenacity to survive, not only the training, but the future in a new job market. Few people will push for it even if they have the foresight to know what lies ahead. Fewer people will take a major financial risk with an education if they think they can get by with what they already have. I've worked in places with unions, and all they do is push to protect the least qualified and least motivated through threats and financial intimidation, and don't ever push to make their constituents more qualified for the future. People search out the path of least resistance even if it leads to a dead end, the outliers challenge themselves to grow.Employers don't like outliers. I have met few people who actually want their employees to challenge them or bring them new, researched and supported, ideas. Managers control, and one of the ways is to put people in little labelled boxes to be moved around like faceless pieces on a board. Yes, there is a great deal that goes into planning to get all the work packages to flow though, but there is also a skill called leadership that encourages information to flow up chain.The lack of leadership, abundance of HR out of touch with the actual needs of a job position, and finally the failings human nature at the individual level all stand in the way of retraining the unskilled or the incorrectly skilled to promote a system to enable change. The failure is at both ends and the middle of the equation.Do you think Trump would hire me with my resume?LinkedIn

I have found the main cause of a kitchen or work related burn is tiredness , either a long day or distracted. But normally it comes down to tiredness. Silly little mistakes that can cost. I am not a big fan of chefs working silly hours. 8–10 hours is the maximum I would allow chefs to work unless we know its going to be a quiet breezy day.Anyway, onto the questionIt really depends on the burn.If its something like thisThen a first step is to call the person an idiot ( in the nicest possible way) and then get on with the work in hand ( no pun intended)If it is more like this…….Then its a little more serious.We have 2 things in our first aid box. One is a cold gel that we pour over the wound or if its not crazy bad then we use a burn spray. Both these items are for professional kitchen first aid kits.Once that is done, we get the wounded chef out of the heat and into a chair with either a stiff drink or the like.We would then lay some soaked gauze on the wound, bandage it and send the chef to the local hospital or medical centre. As a rule of thumb, anything bigger than a 50p ( 2€) coin needs professional attention.That chef would also be out of work on sick leave for at least 3 weeks. Its impossible to work in a hot environment with a serious burn.If treatment goes well and depending on the chefs age ( i.e. blood circulation) then there should be no scarring.After the chef has been treated, we then need to fill out an accident insurance claim, fill in the in house accident book and the accident is reviewed to see what caused it and how it can be prevented in the future.Burns and small cuts are an occupational hazard and our arms show our battle scars. The picture below is not self harming, its just because our arms are continually under the grill, in and out of the oven or under the heat lamps of the pass. Its something you get used to.However its very important to know the difference between a light bun or cut compared to something that needs professional treatment and if I am not sure then I will always recommend a trip to the hospital.We are daft, but not stupidThanks for asking Aaron M. Hilliard

They differ on whether the records are held by private practice medical doctors or by hospitals. The length of time records is kept also depends on whether the patient is an adult or a minor. Generally, medical records are kept anywhere from five to ten years after a patient's latest treatment, discharge or death.

Insurance companies frequently request medical records when evaluating claims. ... The insurance company doesn't have an inherent right to view your records, which is why they will ask you to sign a release granting them the right. But without medical records, your claim will most likely be denied.

SINGAPORE — Employers and insurers will be prohibited from accessing a person's medical history in the National Electronic HEvalth Records (NEAR) once the new HEvalthcare Services Bill comes into effect. ... In this case, no historical data will be available.

If you apply for life or hEvalth insurance, the insurance company will often need your medical records before giving you insurance. Some types of jobs may require medical information. However, potential employers can get your records only if you agree to let them see the records.

The short answer is yes. You will need to disclose medical records to your employer if you file a workers' compensation claim. ... While your employer can request the medical records related to your claim, they cannot force you to disclose sensitive medical information beyond that.