I wonder if accepting such a claim also meant accepting that Thomas had faced an "extraordinary employment condition". That is, did the benefits claim come with an accusation that Uber was at fault? If so, then it's not just a consideration of "common decency", but legal liability.
Note: IANAL and didn't even know what California law was in regards to insurance claims and suicide. Genuinely curious as to the technicalities of the law, and in this case specifically.
Good point! IANAL also, but I read a bit about this and got the following[1]:
> Ultimately, the WCAB emphasized that it was the “work condition that must be uncommon, unusual, or totally unexpected” in order to qualify as an extraordinary employment condition
So, I wonder if by rejecting the claim, Uber is claiming that whatever work conditions Thomas was facing is normal. I wonder if the converse is also true, that accepting the claim also means Uber claims that his work conditions were actually unusual.
I imagine this would. E evaluated by a judge and or a reasonable standard clause. We don't tolerate domestic abuse in the home so maybe those concepts extend to the workplace.
Note: IANAL and didn't even know what California law was in regards to insurance claims and suicide. Genuinely curious as to the technicalities of the law, and in this case specifically.