Workers’ Compensation
Determining catastrophic injury under Labor Law – California
Enacted six years ago, Labor Code 4600 was designed to limit additional impairment (referred to as “add-ons”) for psychiatric injuries to cases involving a “catastrophic injury.” Yet, catastrophic injury was not defined. Clarification is provided in a recent case, Wilson v. State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Ultimately, it is a factual issue for a judge to determine if the nature of the injury is catastrophic. The court gave specific examples such as the loss of a limb, paralysis, a severe burn or a severe head injury, but noted this was not an exhaustive list. It provided a list of factors that should be considered in making the final determination, including the extent of the treatment needed for the injury, ultimate outcome when the employee’s physical injury is permanent and stationary, severity and impact on daily living, and if the physical injury is an incurable and progressive disease. However, other factors may apply and each case will be determined based on the facts.
Tesla settles personal injury lawsuit with janitor for $13M – California
In the case, Teodora Tapia v. Tesla Motors, a janitor at Tesla’s Fremont assembly plan suffered serious and permanent injuries to her lower extremities and body when she was struck and pinned by a vehicle being moved by a temporary worker, who was not certified to drive the Tesla. While the staffing agency, West Valley will pay much of the $13M settlement, Telsa was a joint employee and will pay a portion.
Failure to provide notice of selection of IME nixes benefits – Florida
In Izaguirre v. Beach Walk Resort, a compensation claims judge denied benefits after striking the report of the injured worker’s independent medical examiner (IME). While the worker admitted she had not provided timely notice of the selection of an IME, she argued that the exclusion of the evidence is discretionary. But the 1st District Court of Appeal noted the statute says the failure to timely provide notification shall preclude the requesting party from submitting the IME findings before a JC. The word ‘shall’ connotates mandatory.
Employee cannot sue employer for failure to provide access to medical care – Georgia
In Savannah Hospitality Servs. v. Ma-010 Scriven, an appellate court ruled an employee’s negligence claim against his employer for allegedly denying him access to medical care and insurance coverage following an injury in a vehicular crash is barred by the exclusive remedy provisions. While it was disputed whether the employee was acting in the scope of the employment at the time he was injured, the court said the relevant issue was the aggravation of those injuries by the employer’s alleged negligence in failing to provide access to medical insurance coverage and precluding the employee from seeking a professional medical opinion.
In Georgia, case law supports the argument that if employment aggravates a pre-existing injury, it is a new accident and compensable. Thus, triggering the exclusive remedy defense.
61-page decision details the difference between an employment-related risk and a neutral risk – Illinois
In McAllister v. IWCC (North Pond), a sous chef knelt down in a walk-in cooler while looking for carrots and felt his knee pop when he stood, which required surgery. An arbitrator found the claim compensable, but the Commission found it was not an employment-related risk and denied benefits.
Upon appeal, a majority of the appellate court said that an employment-related risk is one that is distinctly associated with employment. It can fall into one of three categories – employee performing acts as directed by employer; acts the employee has a common law or statutory duty to perform; and acts incidental to duties that an employee might be reasonably expected to perform.
If a worker is injured in an employment-related risk, it is unnecessary to determine if the exposure to risk of injury is greater than the general public. However, if the risk is not employment-related, but is a neutral risk, an analysis should be done to determine if the risk is greater than that of the general public.
Notice of intent to appeal must be filed within 20 days – Illinois
In Conway v. IWCC, an injured school employee received notice of the Commission’s decision on Oct. 27, 2017, but did not file the notice of intent to petition for review until December 2017. The appellate court noted the statute requires a notice of intent to file a petition for review be filed with the Commission within 20 days of receipt of the commission’s decision, which would have been November 16, 2017.
Medical expert need not be a physician – Missouri
In Hogenmiller v. Mississippi Lime Co., an appellate court upheld an award of permanent partial disability benefits for tinnitus to a long-time factory worker based on the expert opinion of an audiologist, instead of the expert opinion offered by a medical doctor who specialized in otolaryngology. While the company argued that the audiologist based his opinion upon the subjective descriptions offered by the worker, the court noted there is no objective standard for diagnosing tinnitus, but awards have been issued on tinnitus claims based on subjective evidence.
Worker cannot back out of settlement even though there was no written agreement – New York
In Lenge v. Eklecco Newco, a construction worker filed suit against the general contractor and others alleging Labor Law § 241(b) violations and common law negligence. On the first day of the trial, his lawyer stated that the parties had agreed to a settlement of $325,000.
Later, after determining a workers’ compensation lien and a Medicare Set-Aside provision significantly reduced the recovery, the worker’s lawyer declared the settlement “null and void” because there was no written agreement. While a trial court agreed, the appellate court indicated that the stipulation by and among the parties formed an independent contract that would be enforced absent a showing of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability.
Going and coming rule nixes benefits for transit worker assaulted by passenger – New York
In Matter of Warner v New York City Tr. Auth, a transit worker was assaulted by a passenger as he disembarked from a subway, traveling to his home after the end of a work shift. He wore his official jacket, safetyvest, and hat that identified him clearly as a subway employee, but had clocked out about five minutes earlier. Since he had clocked out and was using the subway the same as any private citizen, the claim was barred by the going and coming rule.
$33M jury award in asbestos death case – North Carolina
In Finch v. Covil Corp., a district court upheld a nearly $33 million jury award granted to the widow of a long-time employee of a tire factory in Wilson who died from mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. She sued Covil Corp., a pipe insulation company, which had sold virtually all of the insulation, including the pipe insulation, used during the construction of the tire plant. While Covil argued there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict on liability and that the jury’s verdict was excessive, the court disagreed.
Denied workers’ comp, worker can proceed with medical negligence claim – North Carolina
In Jackson v. Timken Co., a worker filed a suit for medical negligence against his employer and the company nurse, asserting he had been incorrectly diagnosed and treated after a stroke at work. Previously, he had filed a workers’ comp claim but was denied because he did not sustain an injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
A judge denied the company’s move to dismiss and the Court of Appeals explained that the Workers’ Compensation Act “does not cover injuries that occur at one’s place of work that are not the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of that person’s employment.” The nurse’s alleged failure to provide a proper diagnose could not be described as an “accident.” Thus, the case can proceed.
Imprisoned worker must continue to receive comp benefits – Pennsylvania
In Carl Sadler v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Philadelphia Coca-Cola), a divided Commonwealth Court ordered Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Inc. to recalculate and reinstate workers’ compensation benefits for a worker who was in prison following his injury. The worker was incarcerated a year after his injury for 525 days until his release at trial where he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to time served.
The worker argued his benefits were miscalculated because the figure did not include frequent overtime and state law provides that pretrial incarceration – incarceration because he could not afford bail – does not meet the “incarceration after conviction” stipulation allowing comp benefits to be withheld. While a judge and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board ruled in favor of Coca-Cola, the Commonwealth Court found merit in the worker’s argument. The case turned on the word “after” – the worker had not been incarcerated after the conviction.
Case to watch: Supreme Court to rule on retroactive application of Protz decision – Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is set to determine the extent to which workers who were still litigating their impairment rating evaluations when the justices issued their landmark workers’ compensation decision in ‘Protz’ are entitled to the benefit of that ruling. Last October in Dana Holding v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Smuck), the Commonwealth Court en banc ruled that the Protz II decision applied to cases in which IREs were still being litigated at the time of the decision and was retroactive to the date of the IRE, rather than the date of the Protz II ruling.
The court will rule on whether the Commonwealth Court erred in applying the rule from Protz retroactive to the date of the IRE instead of the date of the Protz decision and determine whether an employer is entitled to a credit for the period between the date of a worker’s impairment rating evaluation and the date of its decision in Protz.
Amazon worker’s injuries not job-related – Tennessee
In Ameenah House v. Amazon.com Inc., a worker at an Amazon.com Inc. warehouse in Charleston alleged she was injured in three incidents – a back injury, a forklift accident, and an assault by a coworker. The trial court and the state Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied her claim, stating that she did not provide adequate medical evidence that her injuries were related to her job.
Fear of hypodermic needles does not warrant change in physicians – Virginia
In Yahner v. Fire-X Corp., a worker had a normal MRI and a functional capacity evaluation expert opined that she had not sufficiently exerted herself during the exam and likely was exaggerating her symptoms. Her treating physician indicated the best type of continuing care would be injection treatments and she refused on the grounds that she didn’t “like needles.” The Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Commission that denied her petition to change her treating physician; the doctor’s actions did not amount to a discharge.
“Sudden mechanical or structural change” requirement for compensation clarified – Virginia
In Alexandria City Pub. Schs. v. Handel, a teacher slipped and fell in her classroom and asserted she had suffered injuries to her right ankle, knee, hip, shoulder, neck, head, and back. Imaging results did not show damage to the shoulder and the employer contested that part of the claim. When the Commission approved benefits for the shoulder, the employer appealed, arguing that there was no structural or mechanical change to the shoulder.
The requirement ‘to show sudden mechanical or structural change’ has been used in courts to prove the injury was a result of an accident, not the result of gradual change over time, but not to establish that the injuries are “injuries” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation statute. When a single mechanical or structural change establishes that the worker was involved in an accident, all injuries causally connected to the accident are compensable.
For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com
Like this:
Like Loading...
