This FREE legal forum is supported by participating lawfirms in your local area.
The information contained in this public forum, and any comments made by the administrators, it's appointed mediators, or members of the public are of a general nature and may not be regarded as financial or legal advice in any way. We recommend that you seek formal advice from a practicing solicitor or licensed financial advisor regarding your particular situation. By registering to use this forum you meet the above criteria and agree to abide by all of the above rules and policies.
A priori, does 100% functional capacity = healthy
Topic: A priori, does 100% functional capacity = healthy
Posted: 21/March/2017 at 02:49
Greetings -- this is my virginal post So, what is it that brings me to here, these parts? A matter that makes no logical sense to me.
TL;DR I am being told that due to someone's current health issues, a person whose functional capacity has been assessed to be 100% is no longer available to do something with me. If this were actually true, I would presume that their could be no greater than 99%. Is my thinking reasonable?
To appreciate the cognitive dissonance I am experiencing, consider this oversimplified scenario:
Let's say someone falls seriously ill and there are real concerns whether or not they will live or die. But they recover. Bless them.
Their employer seeks to determine their functional capacity in terms of fulfilling the requirements of their job requirements. A panel of three medical specialists reviews the employees health issues and concludes they are able to work at 80% full capacity.
Cool. Now fast forward 12 months. Their functional capacity is upgraded to 100%.
Now, the way I see it, from a medicolegal viewpoint, 100% functional capacity does not mean that someone has no health problems. It simply means, as far as their employer is concerned, the employee can fulfill all the requirements of their tenure.
If this is correct, does it follow then, once an individual is assessed to be at 100% functional capacity, any utterance from the employer that the individual is not eligible to undertake x, y, or z, due to a health issue as it relates to current matters, suggests a departure from basic reason?
Let's just say that if one already suspected that the employer were attempting to leverage the employee's health concerns as a way of terminating their employment, this sort of claim should raise alarm bells.
But based on my limited understanding of all matters jurisprudence, ostensibly, it does not make sense.
As this is my first post, please be nice. No actually don't pull any punches -- please school me with cogent argumentation. My mind is completely open
Edited by faustus - 21/March/2017 at 02:51
|Forum Jump||Forum Permissions
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum