Consider this situation: Martha has worked for over 20 years for a company that manufactures parts for industrial machinery. Martha is a small woman working in a job that requires a great deal of heavy, repetitive lifting. Eventually, she develops a degenerative disc condition in her lower back. The pain and the damage to her back render her unable to do her job. She pursues a workers' compensation claim in her home state, which is one of the least generous states in terms of workers' compensation benefits. The compensation system being the exclusive remedy, she cannot file a separate personal injury lawsuit against the employer for her injury.
Does it seem fair that workers' compensation is Martha's only remedy?
Tip: Consider that Martha might be entitled to greater damages for an equally crippling injury that occurred anywhere else other than where she worked.
Well, sadly enough, some laws might not be fair in all cases. However, in our society, if a law is fair for the majority then it is deemed to be in the best interest of the public and thereby accepted as fair.
In this situation it is rather unfortunate that Martha does not receive as much compensation as a tort theory might allow her. Conversely, if there were no workers ...
Knowing that "if a law is fair for the majority then it is deemed to be in the best interest of the public and thereby accepted as fair" is the foundation for this solution. It emphasizes how important it is to file a state claim or file a legal claim against the company.