The facts of the case clearly state that Ms. Edwards, from now on called the plaintiff, had been injured while trying to pass a mandatory fitness test required for being a District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DCDC), hereinafter called the Defendant in the case, officer. The plaintiff had filed the suit in the District Court of Columbia against the DCDC for non-payment of medical expenses for the plaintiff for medical treatment with regards to the injury the plaintiff sustained during the time of medical fitness test under the supervision of the Defendant. After carefully studying the facts of the case, the Learned District Court of Columbia had passed the judgment that the plaintiff under the laws. According to the regulations governed by Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1970, the defendant could not be held guilty (Hendershot). Providing the medical expenses for the plaintiff, the law under OHSA does not address grievances in personal negligence. Moreover, the “INFORMED CONSENT: LIABILITY RELEASE FORM” that the plaintiff had signed while being stable in both mind and body bars her from getting any payment from the Defendant for covering her medical expenses (Morey).
The judgment passed by the Learned District Court of Columbia does not provide justice to the cause of the plaintiff. The judgment has been passed without looking at the facts of the case correctly. It can be assumed that the judgment was passed with a partial vision by the Learned District Court of Columbia.
As per the rules and regulations that have been stated under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1970. The employers have the responsibility to provide a healthy and safe workplace for its employees (Donnelly). The primary objective of the Act is to provide assurance to the employees of a healthy and safe workplace. The Act aims to achieve such assurances by providing proper training and enforcing standards, provide assistance and education regarding the concept of Safety at Workplace (Morey). The employers are to adhere to and maintain the standards that have been outlined in the OHS Act, 1970. The employers are also to comply with the terms and conditions outlined in the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act, 1970. The General Duty Clause states that the employer is to ensure that all forms of recognizable hazards, which can affect the health and the safety of the employees, are to be kept away from the workplace.
It is being advised that the Judge reconsiders the decision based on this report or the Defendant, and the Plaintiff settle the matter amicably through peaceful negotiations without the need for further arbitration in this case from any Court of Law in the land.
Work Cited
Donnelly, Patrick G. "The Origins Of The Occupational Safety And Health Act Of 1970". Social Problems 30.1 (2002): 13-25. Web.
Edwards, Martin. "Employment Law – Ethical Employment Practices". ac 1998.5 (2012): n. pag. Web.
Hendershot, Dennis C. "Process Safety: More To Process Safety Than Regulations". Journal of Chemical Health and Safety (2016): n. pag. Web.
Morey, Richard S. "The General Duty Clause Of The Occupational Safety And Health Act Of 1970".Harvard Law Review 86.6 (2003): 988. Web.
