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

 

Failure to account for total knee replacement leads to award reversal

In Virginia, if an employee has a permanent disability prior to the work accident, she is entitled to compensation only for the degree of incapacity which would have resulted from the accident if the earlier disability or injury had not existed.

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

Case name: Fairfax County School Board v. Martin-Elberhi, No. 0981-09-4 (Va. Ct. App. 01/12/10).

Ruling: The Virginia Court of Appeals reversed and remanded an award of permanent partial loss benefits, holding that both the Workers' Compensation Commission and the treating physician failed to distinguish between the worker's preexisting condition and her work-related injury in assigning an impairment rating.

What it means: In Virginia, if an employee has a permanent disability prior to the work accident, she is entitled to compensation only for the degree of incapacity which would have resulted from the accident if the earlier disability or injury had not existed.

Summary: A worker received a total knee replacement from a nonwork-related medical condition. Later, she fell at work, injuring her reconstructed knee. Without differentiating between her preexisting condition and the work-related aggravation, her treating physician assigned her a 37 percent lower left extremity impairment rating. The commission assigned her permanent partial loss benefits based on this rating. The Court of Appeals agreed with the employer that the award was erroneous.

The worker argued that the commission implicitly concluded that the present impairment rating was caused solely by the aggravation injury. The court rejected her argument, reasoning that if that were true, it would also mean the commission determined the knee replacement caused no impairment at all. The court pointed out that an employee can recover for the degree of impairment caused by aggravation but not for any preexisting impairment unrelated to the work accident. Any other conclusion would render the current employer liable for a preexisting impairment that arose in other employment or in a nonwork-related accident.

The court noted that the worker's argument that the commission implicitly accounted for the preexisting knee replacement also went against the long-standing practice of accepting the American Medical Association's impairment guidelines. Under the guidelines, a 37 percent lower extremity impairment rating is attributable solely to a successful total knee replacement.

Read more at the WORKERSCOMP ForumTM homepage.

February 11, 2010

Copyright 2010© 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.