Charla Nash's job description did not include "help boss subdue homicidal ape."

We do not know for sure, but we are all but certain Charla Nash's job description did not include "help boss subdue homicidal ape."

But that, essentially, is the claim being made by the owner of the chimpanzee that inflicted horrific injuries on Ms. Nash in February.

The chimpanzee's owner, Sandra Herold, employed Ms. Nash in her tow truck company. Now a lawyer for Ms. Herold says the most Ms. Nash is entitled to is a worker's compensation claim.

That would greatly reduce the damages Ms. Nash could seek. If the tactic works, the most Ms. Nash could receive is the cost of her medical expenses and partial salary. What she would not be entitled to is any compensation for pain and suffering.

That, by any measure, would be wrong. The Associated Press, which reported on the worker's compensation defense, summed up the attack succinctly and graphically this week: "The animal ripped off Nash's hands, nose, lips and eyelids."

If anyone has a legitimate claim to pain and suffering, it's Ms. Nash.

Back on that terrible day in February, Ms. Herold's 200-pound chimpanzee, Travis, lost control. Ms. Herold called Ms. Nash to help get him back in the house, but when Ms. Nash arrived, Travis attacked her. Police shortly thereafter shot the chimp dead.

The Nash family has since sued Ms. Herold for $50 million. But according to Robert Golger, Ms. Herold's attorney, because Ms. Nash worked for the towing company, because Travis was something of a
company mascot, and because the business office for the company was at Ms. Herold's house where the attack took place, worker's compensation is all Ms. Nash should get, according to the AP.

Incredibly, a worker's compensation attorney in the state told the news agency that the tactic is a "very sellable argument" that has a chance of succeeding.

It's hard to imagine that the tragedy that befell Charla Nash in the form of Sandra Herold's chimpanzee could be compounded in any way, so horrible were the results. But to deny her a chance at compensation based on judicial gimmickry -- which is what this worker's compensation business is -- would do just that.

Source