Testimony supports finding of HSV exposure almost 30 years ago

The fact that an employer's records do not document a specific incident that resulted in an injury does not necessarily prove that the incident did not occur.

Case name: Lancaster General Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Weber-Brown), No. 1482 C.D. 2009 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 12/15/09).

Ruling: The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the grant of a nurse's claim petition.

Guard's accident on public road while driving to work not compensable (05/31/12)
Defenses against traveling employees' claims (06/04/12)
Worker fails to land benefits after driving golf cart over ramp (09/15/11)
Legal experts weigh in on Australian sexcapades claim (06/04/12)
Ignoring coexisting conditions can have nightmarish ramifications, expert warns (12/08/11)

What it means: The fact that an employer's records do not document a specific incident that resulted in an injury does not necessarily prove that the incident did not occur.

Summary: A nurse sustained a work-related eye injury that resulted in blindness in one eye. She was exposed to a herpes simplex virus infection in a particular incident in 1979 or 1980. In 2006, the infection recurred, and she lost vision in that eye. She filed a claim for loss of use when her doctor advised her that the corneal scarring required a transplant. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the board's grant of the petition, holding the nurse's vision loss was a result of a specific work-related HSV exposure and was supported by her testimony. The employer's testimony that "most patients could not identify the exact point" that they were infected was rejected.

Read more at the WORKERSCOMP Forum^TM homepage.

February 1, 2010

Newsletter Sign-up