MERGED: MBF rule change-Vote No?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MERGED: MBF rule change-Vote No?
Gday guys,
This came up at work today and seeing as I didn't see anything on here thought I'd draw peoples attention to it.
The Mutual Benefit Fund's Loss of licence cover have introduced new rules which we are meant to vote on from tomorrow (friday 6 March).
They have changed a rule to say that if you are receiving work cover payments you will not get any payments from MBF, for either temporary or permanent loss of licence.
Read the amended rule 6c and see what you think.
Looking at workersComp it looks like your monthly payments could be as low as 75% of your normal income and I believe the total is capped at a fraction of what you'd be entitled to from the MBF.
Looking at the MBF website and all their claims of not reducing their payments due to other income I'd say they're trying to change a rather significant part of their cover.
This came up at work today and seeing as I didn't see anything on here thought I'd draw peoples attention to it.
The Mutual Benefit Fund's Loss of licence cover have introduced new rules which we are meant to vote on from tomorrow (friday 6 March).
They have changed a rule to say that if you are receiving work cover payments you will not get any payments from MBF, for either temporary or permanent loss of licence.
Read the amended rule 6c and see what you think.
6c) The Fund shall not be liable to make payment of Benefits to a Member where the Member’s Class 1 Medical Certificate has been suspended or Permanently Lost for any disability in respect of which, in the Trustee’s reasonable opinion, the Member either is currently or would be entitled to receive any periodical or other payments (including, but not limited to workers’ compensation) under state or federal legislation, unless the disability has been specifically accepted by the Trustee
Looking at the MBF website and all their claims of not reducing their payments due to other income I'd say they're trying to change a rather significant part of their cover.
Last edited by gottaloveflying; 5th Mar 2015 at 11:27. Reason: Added quote
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I was asking myself the same question. I've got MBF mostly to allow me to pay for the mortgage if i lose my medical; costs me over $3500/yr. By this rule, as I read it, if I lose my medical due to an incident at work, or on the way to work, then I'm under Workcover & will NOT receive MBF payout. I could be stuck with, say loss of sight in one eye from a workplace incident, lose my medical, be limited to Workcover at 75% of my current income, and NOT get the lumpsum I'll need from MBF to pay out the family home. Anyone read it differently? I'll be voting NO if that's whats on the table.
This is their reasoning behind it...
"The Trustee would like, to the extent
possible, pay out the full amount of
Members' claims.
To ensure there are sufficient funds
within the Fund to meet those claims
the Trustee is of the view that
Members who have an entitlement to
receive benefits from other entities,
such as WorkCover, should first be
obliged to exhaust those avenues.
Accordingly, this expanded Rule
provides the ability for the Trustee to
exclude or defer claims where the
Member should be receiving other
benefits, such as workers
compensation and others.
If a Member has no relevant
entitlements then this Rule will be of
no effect."
So will you still receive your full payout after you've exhausted government funds?
"The Trustee would like, to the extent
possible, pay out the full amount of
Members' claims.
To ensure there are sufficient funds
within the Fund to meet those claims
the Trustee is of the view that
Members who have an entitlement to
receive benefits from other entities,
such as WorkCover, should first be
obliged to exhaust those avenues.
Accordingly, this expanded Rule
provides the ability for the Trustee to
exclude or defer claims where the
Member should be receiving other
benefits, such as workers
compensation and others.
If a Member has no relevant
entitlements then this Rule will be of
no effect."
So will you still receive your full payout after you've exhausted government funds?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jamair
By this rule, as I read it, if I lose my medical due to an incident at work, or on the way to work, then I'm under Workcover
So if the Trustee’s reasonable opinion is that you would be entitled to – not actually being presently paid – periodic or other payments of any amount from anyone else in respect of your injury, the MBF doesn’t have to pay?
Hey guys: I’ll give you the same deal, for half the premium you’re paying now.
You’d have the benefit of certainty that every claim you made would receive this response: “My opinion is that you would be entitled to some payment from someone, somewhere, in respect of your injury. So I’m not liable.”
Pretty safe bet my opinion’s reasonable, or that you’ll go broke long before you prove it isn’t.
Hey guys: I’ll give you the same deal, for half the premium you’re paying now.
You’d have the benefit of certainty that every claim you made would receive this response: “My opinion is that you would be entitled to some payment from someone, somewhere, in respect of your injury. So I’m not liable.”
Pretty safe bet my opinion’s reasonable, or that you’ll go broke long before you prove it isn’t.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old rule (below) seems to say something similar. That being the case, I see this rule change as a tidying up of the legalese rather than a new direction for the Fund.
However, I shall be talking to the Fund on Tuesday when the relevant officers are back at work. If this discussion is still active then, I'll let you know anything of interest.
However, I shall be talking to the Fund on Tuesday when the relevant officers are back at work. If this discussion is still active then, I'll let you know anything of interest.
(c) The Fund shall not be liable to make payments for monthly Benefits to a Member where the Member’s Class 1 Medical Certificate has been suspended either temporarily or permanently for any disability recognised by any repatriation or statutory authority whether treatment is currently being received or not, unless the disability has been specifically accepted by the Trustee.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: eca
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta love flying this is not a rule change, MBF cover has always excluded work cover. What you've got to realise is if or when a work cover claim is denied or ceases MBF will pay out as usual. You just can't claim both at the same time.
With the MBF you are still entitled to other insurance income and to earn income in a non flying capacity. Other loss of license providers or insurers will offset against their cover but the MBF won't.
With the MBF you are still entitled to other insurance income and to earn income in a non flying capacity. Other loss of license providers or insurers will offset against their cover but the MBF won't.
Not a rule change?
You reckon this:
is the same as this:
What about an injury that results in a disability that’s not recognised by any repatriation or statutory authority but could result in a payment under a piece of legislation? There’s lots and lots of legislation out there.
I wouldn’t be paying thousands in annual premiums for insurance with either version in it, but I reckon the latter is far broader an ‘out’ than the former.
If it’s not going to make any make any practical difference, why is it being changed?
You reckon this:
any disability recognised by any repatriation or statutory authority
is currently or would be entitled to receive any periodical or other payments (including, but not limited to workers’ compensation) under state or federal legislation
I wouldn’t be paying thousands in annual premiums for insurance with either version in it, but I reckon the latter is far broader an ‘out’ than the former.
If it’s not going to make any make any practical difference, why is it being changed?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jamair,
That's ridiculous! If you had a major injury causing permanent loss of licence you would either:
A) get a generous compensation payout from WorkCover or
B) be able to claim your MBF benefit.
Creampuff,
Yes of course it's a Rule change. That's the point, it's a Rule change to make it clearer. Statutory Authority always included Workcover as MBF does not double up on statutory authority entitlements. BUT if the statutory authority payment stops and the condition preventing meeting the Class 1 standards continues or is permanent the MBF cover continues.
That's ridiculous! If you had a major injury causing permanent loss of licence you would either:
A) get a generous compensation payout from WorkCover or
B) be able to claim your MBF benefit.
Creampuff,
Yes of course it's a Rule change. That's the point, it's a Rule change to make it clearer. Statutory Authority always included Workcover as MBF does not double up on statutory authority entitlements. BUT if the statutory authority payment stops and the condition preventing meeting the Class 1 standards continues or is permanent the MBF cover continues.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAPMBF Proposed Rule Change - CAUTION!
I havent' posted here before, but this is important to all pilots and needs to be spread Aviation industry wide in Australia.
The MBF proposes a series of changes to its current rules put for vote by its members - you should have received an email. It's a simple yes or no vote to the whole lot. I ask that members do not disregard this as spam and read the proposed changes as it may seriously effect your insurance policy and potential pay out that you pay lots of premiums into for your protection.
Of note is the proposed change to rule 6(c):
(c) The Fund shall not be liable to make payment of Benefits to a Member where the Member’s Class 1 Medical Certificate has been Permanently Lost for any disability, in respect of which, in the Trustee’s reasonable opinion, the Member either is currently or would be entitled to receive any periodical or other payments (including, but not limited to workers’ compensation) under state or federal legislation, unless the disability has been specifically accepted by the Trustee.
The proposed change of note is underlined.
Essentially if the vote is passed, the MBF may refuse to pay your insurance pay out if it were deemed you "could" be entitled to, or are receiving another form of payout (workers compo etc) which caused your loss of Class 1 medical. I ask that members seriously consider this change as essentially if you lose your Class One to any work related injury, car crash (covered under CTP) or other accident that could be considered someone else's fault (and hence liability claimable) you may not receive any or all of your insurance pay out that you have paid many $thousands of premiums into!!
This is flawed policy and an easy out for the fund not to pay out your insurance!!! Insurance pay outs should be treated as mutually exclusive pay outs regardless of what other compensation you may receive - that's why you pay premiums!!
Unfortunately the Fund does not have a means for general discussion on these changes (another flaw!!), nor can you vote for individual rule changes (another flaw...). So unless someone from the Fund, or otherwise, can argue a decent counter to this or explain that my interpretation is wrong, I'll be voting NO to all changes and I urge other members to consider this seriously and to spread this discussion on other forums.
The MBF proposes a series of changes to its current rules put for vote by its members - you should have received an email. It's a simple yes or no vote to the whole lot. I ask that members do not disregard this as spam and read the proposed changes as it may seriously effect your insurance policy and potential pay out that you pay lots of premiums into for your protection.
Of note is the proposed change to rule 6(c):
(c) The Fund shall not be liable to make payment of Benefits to a Member where the Member’s Class 1 Medical Certificate has been Permanently Lost for any disability, in respect of which, in the Trustee’s reasonable opinion, the Member either is currently or would be entitled to receive any periodical or other payments (including, but not limited to workers’ compensation) under state or federal legislation, unless the disability has been specifically accepted by the Trustee.
The proposed change of note is underlined.
Essentially if the vote is passed, the MBF may refuse to pay your insurance pay out if it were deemed you "could" be entitled to, or are receiving another form of payout (workers compo etc) which caused your loss of Class 1 medical. I ask that members seriously consider this change as essentially if you lose your Class One to any work related injury, car crash (covered under CTP) or other accident that could be considered someone else's fault (and hence liability claimable) you may not receive any or all of your insurance pay out that you have paid many $thousands of premiums into!!
This is flawed policy and an easy out for the fund not to pay out your insurance!!! Insurance pay outs should be treated as mutually exclusive pay outs regardless of what other compensation you may receive - that's why you pay premiums!!
Unfortunately the Fund does not have a means for general discussion on these changes (another flaw!!), nor can you vote for individual rule changes (another flaw...). So unless someone from the Fund, or otherwise, can argue a decent counter to this or explain that my interpretation is wrong, I'll be voting NO to all changes and I urge other members to consider this seriously and to spread this discussion on other forums.
Last edited by JPMC; 6th Mar 2015 at 19:37. Reason: Merged topic hence different intro needed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Campdoag: The old rule did seem to apply but only in some cases. The new one seems to be a catch all.
Dirty Deeds: Jamair's example hits the nail on the head, if it's an injury that leaves you fully capable of normal work but without a class 1 medical I don't think WorkCover's payout would be all that generous, especially compared with what we're paying for with the fund.
I don't mind the fact the fund is trying to save a bit of money by getting you to go to workcover first, but they don't seem to take into account that WorkCover will be giving you much much less than what you'd be entitled too from the fund. Could leave you high and dry when you need it most.
Dirty Deeds: Jamair's example hits the nail on the head, if it's an injury that leaves you fully capable of normal work but without a class 1 medical I don't think WorkCover's payout would be all that generous, especially compared with what we're paying for with the fund.
I don't mind the fact the fund is trying to save a bit of money by getting you to go to workcover first, but they don't seem to take into account that WorkCover will be giving you much much less than what you'd be entitled too from the fund. Could leave you high and dry when you need it most.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JPMC “I havent' posted here before,….” Understandable since you only registered yesterday.
So you think it is reasonable to double or triple dip?
You want your loss of license insurance to pay out, which is logical since you paid the premium.
But you also want workers compensation to pay out, an expense to the entire industry and you also want the Australian tax payer to possibly pay out in the form of disability insurance/pension, with none of those payments being means tested and regardless of your LOL insurance payout?
Does the proposed rule change not say that one should expire all other avenues, before LOL insurance pays out? Should the proposed rule change not provide a guarantee the LOL insurance will pay out, after taking into account other payments and benefits received?
So you think it is reasonable to double or triple dip?
You want your loss of license insurance to pay out, which is logical since you paid the premium.
But you also want workers compensation to pay out, an expense to the entire industry and you also want the Australian tax payer to possibly pay out in the form of disability insurance/pension, with none of those payments being means tested and regardless of your LOL insurance payout?
Does the proposed rule change not say that one should expire all other avenues, before LOL insurance pays out? Should the proposed rule change not provide a guarantee the LOL insurance will pay out, after taking into account other payments and benefits received?
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Second ever post (on this site)...... I know, how dare I!!
Air Ace, In your perceived viewpoint yes happy to double dip, if I'm simply receiving my insurance I've paid premiums for. For mine however, it's not double dipping if you're receiving money from a policy you've paid for as you said.
Compensation and pensions from statutory authorities are separate issues to a privately funded insurance policy. As a side point, compensations and pensions are two separate ideologies. One is a pay out for an impairment or imposition, the other is a supported income. And both are entitlements to those who satisfy their requirements regardless of any private insurance.
Air Ace, In your perceived viewpoint yes happy to double dip, if I'm simply receiving my insurance I've paid premiums for. For mine however, it's not double dipping if you're receiving money from a policy you've paid for as you said.
Compensation and pensions from statutory authorities are separate issues to a privately funded insurance policy. As a side point, compensations and pensions are two separate ideologies. One is a pay out for an impairment or imposition, the other is a supported income. And both are entitlements to those who satisfy their requirements regardless of any private insurance.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys need to get on the phone and talk to someone at the MBF, they will explain these changes in detail and not with a bush law slant that seems to be thrown around here like gospel truth!!
Either claim workcover and defer MBF payments or claim MBF payments. Simple!
Has been like this for years!!!!
Rule changes simply spell this out now!
Air Ace, nice post, people want their cake and want to eat it too. This is why I have a two year waiting period on my income protection so my MBF payments don't offset my income protection payments.
Either claim workcover and defer MBF payments or claim MBF payments. Simple!
Has been like this for years!!!!
Rule changes simply spell this out now!
Air Ace, nice post, people want their cake and want to eat it too. This is why I have a two year waiting period on my income protection so my MBF payments don't offset my income protection payments.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either claim workcover and defer MBF payments or claim MBF payments. Simple!
in respect of which, in the Trustee’s reasonable opinion, the Member either is currently or would be entitled to receive any periodical or other payments (including, but not limited to workers’ compensation) under state or federal legislation,
Are they saying you are required to exhaust ALL avenues then they pay out in full?
I am assuming that is what is intended but that is not what it says!!
There will be arguments galore about whether people should or should not "double dip" as some seem to think it is, however in my mind the issue is whether or not I am going to be stuck in the middle with no money and no income while everything gets sorted out. The biggest payment in the world is not all that helpful if it comes a year after you have had to sell your home in a fire sale and taken the kids out of school because the MBF won't pay because in their opinion you are eligible for workers comp and the workers comp insurers argue that they are not liable.
In the meantime you have run out of sick leave, annual leave, long service leave and are now in leave without pay or worse still have been terminated.
I don't care if the MBF a wants to recover their funds from the workers comps insurer after the fact, BUT I would prefer someone, anyone, paid me in the interim while the lawyers duked it out.
Anyone with a family and a mortgage will be in a position where the loss of income very quickly becomes a critical situation.
I would prefer the rule change said something along the lines of "the MBF will provide cover for loss of licence in the first instance but retains the right to recover any funds paid from any insurance payments paid to the insured" or legalese words to that effect.
In the meantime you have run out of sick leave, annual leave, long service leave and are now in leave without pay or worse still have been terminated.
I don't care if the MBF a wants to recover their funds from the workers comps insurer after the fact, BUT I would prefer someone, anyone, paid me in the interim while the lawyers duked it out.
Anyone with a family and a mortgage will be in a position where the loss of income very quickly becomes a critical situation.
I would prefer the rule change said something along the lines of "the MBF will provide cover for loss of licence in the first instance but retains the right to recover any funds paid from any insurance payments paid to the insured" or legalese words to that effect.
It is interesting to note the differing concepts of "double dipping".
Apparently, the first 'dip' is to claim an entitlement to which everyone - MBF member or not - in similar circumstances in the workplace is entitled, under statutory schemes.
When you say the "taxpayer" pays for this first 'dip', you're right. But you seem to be overlooking the fact that the "taxpayer" includes pilots who have been paying income tax, GST, fuel excise, stamp duty and a variety of other taxes during his or her working life, like the rest of the working population. (It's an interesting recent phenomenon in Australia: Everyone seems to have been sleep-walked into believing that they are not entitled to anything in return for the hundreds of billions paid by them in tax each year.)
Apparently, the second 'dip' is to claim from the MBF.
But wait a moment: The MBF member has been paying extra thousands in premiums to the MBF, which premiums were not being paid by the general workforce.
I am therefore not surprised that MBF members might expect to be entitled to get something more than what the general workforce is entitled to, under statutory schemes, in return for the premiums MBF members but not members of general workforce have been paying.
I anticipate that this will all resolve to two, diametrically-opposed, understandings of what the MBF is actually for. One side will say that the intention of scheme was always, and continues to be, to cover the member to the extent, and only to the extent, if any, that the statutory schemes do not adequately compensate the member for the circumstances. The other side will say that a member is entitled to benefits under both, or at least to have a choice.
Let's assume that the first understanding is the correct one. If I were an MBF member, I'd be saying that's great, but the rule should therefore provide that I'm not entitled to compensation from the MBF if, and only if, I am already receiving, under a statutory scheme, the amount of compensation I would otherwise have been entitled to receive from the MBF for the specific, pilot-career related consequences of the circumstances.
But that's not what the current rule or proposed amended rule says (which is why I wouldn't be paying thousands in premiums under either version).
The way I read it, if I could be entitled to any compensation under any statutory scheme, the MBF can choose not to pay me anything. Therefore, the onus would be on me to prove a negative: that is, that I am not entitled to receive anything in the circumstances under any statutory scheme. A very difficult thing to prove as a matter of practicality, especially noting that, by definition, the amount of dollars in my sky rocket may be quickly drying up.
Further, and even assuming I'm undoubtedly entitled to compensation under a statutory scheme, the rule does not require an equivalence of the amount of compensation under the statutory scheme compared with what would otherwise be payable by the MBF. If any statutory scheme anywhere will pay me $10 a week compensation for my disability, the MBF does not have to pay me anything at all. I'm perfectly fit to push a pen behind a desk, and therefore the fact that my dream of flying for a career until retirement is over is - well - too bad too sad: enjoy the $10 a week from the statutory scheme.
Dirty Deeds said:
Exquisitely circular: A change that makes no difference.
That might be the intention, but on any sensible reading of the current rule and the proposed amended rule, the latter produces a substantially different outcome to the former.
And if it comes to an argument, in a Court, about what each version of the rule means, everyone's strong opinions about what may have been intended will be interesting but irrelevant.
Apparently, the first 'dip' is to claim an entitlement to which everyone - MBF member or not - in similar circumstances in the workplace is entitled, under statutory schemes.
When you say the "taxpayer" pays for this first 'dip', you're right. But you seem to be overlooking the fact that the "taxpayer" includes pilots who have been paying income tax, GST, fuel excise, stamp duty and a variety of other taxes during his or her working life, like the rest of the working population. (It's an interesting recent phenomenon in Australia: Everyone seems to have been sleep-walked into believing that they are not entitled to anything in return for the hundreds of billions paid by them in tax each year.)
Apparently, the second 'dip' is to claim from the MBF.
But wait a moment: The MBF member has been paying extra thousands in premiums to the MBF, which premiums were not being paid by the general workforce.
I am therefore not surprised that MBF members might expect to be entitled to get something more than what the general workforce is entitled to, under statutory schemes, in return for the premiums MBF members but not members of general workforce have been paying.
I anticipate that this will all resolve to two, diametrically-opposed, understandings of what the MBF is actually for. One side will say that the intention of scheme was always, and continues to be, to cover the member to the extent, and only to the extent, if any, that the statutory schemes do not adequately compensate the member for the circumstances. The other side will say that a member is entitled to benefits under both, or at least to have a choice.
Let's assume that the first understanding is the correct one. If I were an MBF member, I'd be saying that's great, but the rule should therefore provide that I'm not entitled to compensation from the MBF if, and only if, I am already receiving, under a statutory scheme, the amount of compensation I would otherwise have been entitled to receive from the MBF for the specific, pilot-career related consequences of the circumstances.
But that's not what the current rule or proposed amended rule says (which is why I wouldn't be paying thousands in premiums under either version).
The way I read it, if I could be entitled to any compensation under any statutory scheme, the MBF can choose not to pay me anything. Therefore, the onus would be on me to prove a negative: that is, that I am not entitled to receive anything in the circumstances under any statutory scheme. A very difficult thing to prove as a matter of practicality, especially noting that, by definition, the amount of dollars in my sky rocket may be quickly drying up.
Further, and even assuming I'm undoubtedly entitled to compensation under a statutory scheme, the rule does not require an equivalence of the amount of compensation under the statutory scheme compared with what would otherwise be payable by the MBF. If any statutory scheme anywhere will pay me $10 a week compensation for my disability, the MBF does not have to pay me anything at all. I'm perfectly fit to push a pen behind a desk, and therefore the fact that my dream of flying for a career until retirement is over is - well - too bad too sad: enjoy the $10 a week from the statutory scheme.
Dirty Deeds said:
Creampuff,
Yes of course it's a Rule change. That's the point, it's a Rule change to make it clearer.
Yes of course it's a Rule change. That's the point, it's a Rule change to make it clearer.
That might be the intention, but on any sensible reading of the current rule and the proposed amended rule, the latter produces a substantially different outcome to the former.
And if it comes to an argument, in a Court, about what each version of the rule means, everyone's strong opinions about what may have been intended will be interesting but irrelevant.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ga_trojan
Quote:
in respect of which, in the Trustee’s reasonable opinion, the Member either is currently or would be entitled to receive any periodical or other payments (including, but not limited to workers’ compensation) under state or federal legislation,
Member is either currently: defer your MBF payments and receive payments from elsewhere.
My understanding is if you are injured at work, you would be on sick leave, therefore during this process you are entitled to workers compensation (WC).
Or would be entitled to: If you are not entitled to WC, you should receive MBF payments.
And Creampuff, I can assure you that the courts will look at the intent of the rule, that's their job, to apply intent!!! By the way, are you an MBF member, because in your post you state, "If I were an MBF member"?
Have a look at each states workers compensation payments schedules, they all differ, but most pay up to a maximum % on your weekly calculated earnings.
Once again, defer your MBF payments as the rules allow and claim workers compensation/other. If you are not injured at work or not entitled to WC, claim the MBF.
Quote:
in respect of which, in the Trustee’s reasonable opinion, the Member either is currently or would be entitled to receive any periodical or other payments (including, but not limited to workers’ compensation) under state or federal legislation,
Member is either currently: defer your MBF payments and receive payments from elsewhere.
My understanding is if you are injured at work, you would be on sick leave, therefore during this process you are entitled to workers compensation (WC).
Or would be entitled to: If you are not entitled to WC, you should receive MBF payments.
And Creampuff, I can assure you that the courts will look at the intent of the rule, that's their job, to apply intent!!! By the way, are you an MBF member, because in your post you state, "If I were an MBF member"?
Have a look at each states workers compensation payments schedules, they all differ, but most pay up to a maximum % on your weekly calculated earnings.
Once again, defer your MBF payments as the rules allow and claim workers compensation/other. If you are not injured at work or not entitled to WC, claim the MBF.