回复：大神看来生活在天堂不晓凡事, 现在救护车不要钱的

(A)至少在老貓所在的州，就護車是要收費的
(b)僱主不見得需要替臨時僱員購買保險，但是雇主有義務提供員工一個安全的工作環境，加州的勞工部有相關的資料 (url http://jobsearch.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=jobsearch&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dir.ca.gov%2F
所以樓上的情況，如果是與工作相關的傷害，這位朋友可以要求她的雇主提供 workers; compensation. 然而如果是因為自已身体的不適導致暈倒，雇主並不一定要完全負擔所有的醫療費用
(詳細的情況請見 ***** 899 workers; compensation reform)
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/sen/*****_0851-0900/*****_899_bill_20040419_chaptered.html)
或是
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/*****899/SB899Review2005.htm

請特別注意這一部份
Existing law requires that workers' compensation provisions beliberally construed by the courts with the purpose of extending theirbenefits for the protection of persons injured in the course of
their employment.
Existing law prohibits this provision from being construed asrelieving a party or a lien claimant from meeting the evidentiary
burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
This bill would repeal this provision and instead would requirethat all parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burdenof proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence in orderthat all parties are considered equal before the law.
以及這一部份
Existing law generally provides for the reimbursement of medical
providers for services rendered in connection with the treatment of aworker's injury.
This bill would limit the amounts paid for these services to thereasonable maximum amounts in the official medical fee schedule ineffect on the date of service.


總的來說，這位朋友的僱主如果能夠證明該員工在工作時暈倒並不是因為與工作環境有關，拒絕支付兩年前的救護車費用under新法是與法有據的。

所有跟帖： 

• 别提加州医院，一堆狗屎。 -天道大神- ♀ (152 bytes) () 01/19/2006 postreply 13:19:54

• 但是具我所知，劳工伤害的范围有阔大的趋势。 -天道大神- ♀ (140 bytes) () 01/19/2006 postreply 13:28:45