Hoyt,
If GSP LLC would assume the liability at the time of return, why would it
risk bringing them back for light duty work? Why not wait until they are
fully released, particularly if one of them is going to sue under workers
comp scheme?
Also, Hoyt, you need to be careful about revealing conversations with GSP
counsel to MG -- I noticed you had cc'd someone from Media General in the
prior email. We don't want to waive any privileges.
Michelle
HThomas@gspcorp.com on 11/15/2000 06:10:00 PM
To:
peter.del.vecchio@enron.com,
david.howe@enron.comcc:
michelle.cash@enron.com,
LFaucheaux@media-general.com,
MParker@gspcorp.com Subject: Privileged and Confidential Communication to my Attorney
Peter, we have two long-term worker's comp cases whose accidents
happened before Enron bought GSP. We would like to bring them back to
do light-duty work, to get them in the swing of working again and also
to get some adminstrative work done.
I am concerned that bringing these employees back to work on light
duty will cause these cases to become an Enron liability rather than
an MG liability. I discussed this with Pat McCarthy, the labor and
employment law attorney we are using in NJ, and he said that the
liability would typically not transfer to GSP just because we brought
them back . . . it would still be an MG liability, UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE
HURT HIMSELF AGAIN. In which case, GSP owns it.
However, Pat said that a lot of what determines the ownership of the
worker's comp cases is written into the purchase and sale agreement.
He said that there may be language that addresses an employee's return
to work from worker's comp. I know that we have an ongoing dispute
about worker's comp with MG at this point. What would be your
recommendation on bringing these employees back to work?
As a bit of additional info, one of the two employees seems eager to
come back . . . the other one does not. An employee told me that the
second employee actually has a lawsuit filed against MG/old GSP about
his injury.
