Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
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

 

Employer must pay for cook's weight-loss surgery

In Indiana, an employer may be required to pay for secondary medical treatment if it is necessary in order to treat the employee's work-related injury.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Case name: PS2, LLC d/b/a Boston's Gourmet Pizza v. Childers, No. 93A02-0902-EX-176 (Ind. Ct. App. 08/06/09).

Ruling: The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that a pizza restaurant had to pay for an employee's weight-loss surgery. The surgery was required so that doctors could treat the employee's work-related injury.

What it means: In Indiana, an employer may be required to pay for secondary medical treatment if it is necessary in order to treat the employee's work-related injury.

Summary: A 25-year-old cook at a pizza restaurant was injured when a freezer door hit him in the back while he was working. At the time of the incident, the cook was 6 feet tall, weighed 340 pounds, and smoked around 30 cigarettes a day. After the accident, his back pain increased, and he underwent a number of treatments and examinations, all of which failed to help his pain. He was determined to be a candidate for spinal fusion surgery. However, by that time his weight had increased to 380 pounds. Doctors indicated his weight could cause the fusion to be unsuccessful. The employer agreed to pay for the back surgery but argued it was not obligated to pay for a weight-loss operation because he was obese before the accident. The Court of Appeals determined that the cook's weight and the accident had combined to create a single injury. The court noted that the employer did not present evidence that the cook's weight was a medical problem before the accident. In contrast, after the accident, the cook's weight and injury made him almost immobile. The court determined that the employer must pay for both surgeries.

The court noted that several other states -- including California, Oregon, Florida, Ohio and South Dakota -- have ordered employers to pay for weight-loss treatments.

Read more at the WORKERSCOMP ForumTM homepage.

October 8, 2009

Copyright 2009© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.