Odd, in that worker's comp sets a ceiling on damages, which many companies prefer. In major workplace injury cases you often see the company arguing that it's

Odd, in that worker's comp sets a ceiling on damages, which many companies prefer. In major workplace injury cases you often see the company arguing that it's a worker's comp injury and the employee arguing that it's not. The limits on damages under worker's comp are notoriously low -- for example, in most states a loss of a finger is a fixed payment of 16 weeks wages. Most juries would award much higher. Plaintiffs lawyers (who normally take 33% of settlements) hate worker's comp because there's no lawsuit -- it's just a paperwork filing with no evidence required other than that the injury happened at work. It doesn't matter who is at fault, how the equipment was designed, etc. This feels like there's another agenda at play that's not well explained in TFA. It sounds like a bit of a bootleggers and baptists coalition if plaintiffs' attorneys and companies are both in favor of something.