Emerging Strategies for Risk  
 
Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorsTM
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Vendor Directories
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 
Print Email Write to the Editor Reprints

Mechanic links staph infection to work injury despite diabetes

A period of more than six months between an employee's work injury and development of a staph infection will not bar a finding of a causal connection, especially where he suffered from a condition that made him more susceptible to an infection.

Case name: Krems v. Ethyl Petroleum Additives, 17 ILWCLB 84 (Ill. W.C. Comm. 2009).

Ruling: The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission awarded benefits to a mechanic who suffered burns to 10 percent of his body in a work accident and subsequently developed a staph infection.

What it means: A period of more than six months between an employee's work injury and development of a staph infection will not bar a finding of a causal connection, especially where the employee's work accident resulted in open wounds, he was hospitalized, and he suffered from a condition that made him more susceptible to develop a staph infection.

Summary: A general mechanic sustained burns to his abdomen and both arms in a work accident. The mechanic was also a diabetic. More than six months after the accident, the mechanic returned to his doctor with a staph infection in his elbow. He was hospitalized and treated with antibiotics. The mechanic argued that his staph infection was causally connected to his work accident. The employer's doctor testified that that there was no relationship between the development of the condition and the work accident. However, the doctor admitted that the mechanic's diabetic condition made him more susceptible to the development of a staph infection. The commission affirmed and adopted the arbitrator's findings that the mechanic's work accident "might have been or could have been" a cause or one of the causes of the staph infection.

Although the employer's doctor testified that a causal relationship between a staph infection and the accident was impossible, the doctor could not identify a specific time table from colonization of staph bacteria to infection. The commission determined that more than six months between the work injury and the diagnosis of the staph infection was not such an extravagant length of time as to sever a causal connection. The commission affirmed the award of benefits.

Read more at the WORKERSCOMP ForumTM homepage.


August 20, 2009

Copyright 2009© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

© Copyright 2010 LRP Publications. All rights reserved.