Odd, in that worker&#x27;s comp sets a ceiling on damages, which many companies prefer.  In major workplace injury cases you often see the company arguing that it&#x27;s a worker&#x27;s comp injury and the employee arguing that it&#x27;s not.<p>The limits on damages under worker&#x27;s comp are notoriously low -- for example, in most states a loss of a finger is a fixed payment of 16 weeks wages.  Most juries would award much higher.<p>Plaintiffs lawyers (who normally take 33% of settlements) hate worker&#x27;s comp because there&#x27;s no lawsuit -- it&#x27;s just a paperwork filing with no evidence required other than that the injury happened at work.  It doesn&#x27;t matter who is at fault, how the equipment was designed, etc.<p>This feels like there&#x27;s another agenda at play that&#x27;s not well explained in TFA.  It sounds like a bit of a bootleggers and baptists coalition if plaintiffs&#x27; attorneys and companies are both in favor of something.