Deputy sheriff can't secure medical benefits for back problems

Where the medical records do not establish a causal link between an employee's injury and his multiple back pathologies, the employee has failed to provide requisite evidence supporting a benefit award.

Case name: Valesano v. Iron County, 23 MIWCLR 193 (Mich. W.C.A.C. 2009).

Ruling: The Michigan Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission reversed the magistrate's decision awarding medical benefits to a deputy sheriff who alleged he was injured during a car chase.

Arrest for assault, drugs not enough to end benefits (11/07/11)
Correction officer's denial of prior back injury proves costly (06/20/11)
Wrist surgery, scar justify benefits for arm injury (12/22/11)
Doorman gets second chance to prove he is an employee of bar (07/19/12)
Teacher strikes out on claim for benefits for softball game injury (09/06/11)

What it means: Where the employee offers no medical depositions, the medical records do not establish a causal link between his injury and his multiple back pathologies, and the employee's doctor is not able to draw a causal link between the accident and a low back pathology, the employee has failed to provide requisite evidence supporting a benefit award.

Summary: A deputy sheriff was driving his police vehicle trying to apprehend an individual with mental health issues when the individual turned and intentionally struck the deputy's car with his truck. The deputy's car was totaled, and his head struck the roof of the vehicle, leaving a permanent impact. The county argued that the deputy's injuries did not result from this incident, as there was evidence the deputy had preexisting conditions. The deputy was the only witness to testify.

Prior to the accident, the deputy had never been treated for back pain. The limited medical evidence did not link the deputy's low back problems to his work accident. He offered no medical depositions, and the medical records that were admitted did not establish a causal link between his injury and his multiple low back pathologies. In fact, the only causation comment contained in the medical records was detrimental to the deputy's case.

The commission's opinion reflected that even though the deputy had testified, a lay person "cannot causally relate low back pathology . . . to a specific injury." It emphasized that an entitlement to medical benefits must be determined by a competent medical opinion. As the deputy's doctor was not able to draw a causal link between the accident and a low back pathology, the deputy was not entitled to medical benefits.

Read more at the WORKERSCOMP Forum^TM homepage.

November 16, 2009

Newsletter Sign-up