Bangladesh court bans Rana Plaza movie because of terrifying scenes
Legal Events
Bangladesh’s high court has imposed a six-month ban on a film about a garment worker who was rescued from the rubble 17 days after a five-storey factory complex collapsed, killing more than 1,000 people.
The director, Nazrul Islam Khan, had argued that the real-life story of Reshma Begum depicted courage amid the tragedy.
The disaster on 24 April 2013 left 1,135 people dead. Thousands more were rescued from the ruins of the illegally built complex which housed five factories supplying garments to international companies.
Rescue workers had given up hope of finding anyone else alive in the rubble of the Rana Plaza. Then they heard a faint tapping.
When the collapse started, Begum said she raced down a stairwell into the basement, where she became trapped in a pocket of space that allowed her to survive. She found some dried food and bottles of water to sustain her until she was rescued. She now works in a hotel.
The collapse triggered an outcry at home and abroad. There have been efforts to reform Bangladesh’s garment industry to improve safety and working conditions.
Investigators say several factors contributed to the building’s collapse: it was overloaded with machines and generators, constructed on swampy land, and the owner added floors in violation of the original building plan.
Related listings
-
Texas man charged in killing of 8 set for court appearance
Legal Events 08/12/2015A man charged with capital murder in the fatal shooting of a family of six children and two parents at their Houston home is set to make his first court appearance. David Conley, who authorities say was previously in a contentious relationship with t...
-
Republicans reject governor's pick for Va. Supreme Court
Legal Events 08/03/2015Leaders of the Republican-controlled General Assembly say they are rejecting Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe's pick for the Virginia Supreme Court in favor of a their own selection. House Speaker William J. Howell and Senate Majority Leader Th...
-
Crimean Filmmaker Pleads Not Guilty in Terrorism Trial
Legal Events 07/22/2015A Ukrainian filmmaker who has been in a Russian jail for more than a year on Tuesday pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit terrorism. Critics have dismissed Oleh Sentsov's prosecution as revenge for his pro-Ukrainian position in Russi...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.