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

 

Trucker awarded benefits for original injury despite intervening employment

In Georgia, the original employer may be liable for benefits where there is evidence that the initial job-related injury is the sole reason an employee is unable to work.

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

Case name: Trucks, Inc., et al. v. Trowell, No. A09A1624 (Ga. Ct. App. 02/08/10).

Ruling: The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the benefits award to a truck driver. It determined her initial injury rather than a change in condition or new accident affected her ability to work.

What it means: In Georgia, the original employer may be liable for benefits where there is evidence that the initial job-related injury is the sole reason an employee is unable to work.

Summary: A truck driver injured her shoulder using a hand crank at work. Her employer accepted her claim as medical-only and paid for her treatment. She resigned due to a work slowdown. The driver accepted a driving job with a different company but later resigned because work was slow. Her shoulder pain continued, and her doctor advised her to stop working until she could undergo surgery. Her original employer refused to pay for surgery or medical treatment, arguing that her injury was worsened or aggravated by her use of a manual gear shift in her subsequent employment.

The employer also argued she had to prove that her present disability resulted from a change in condition. The Georgia Appeals Court upheld the benefits award and determined the driver did not have to establish a change in her condition. The change in condition rule is only applicable if the claimant received income benefits, the court noted. Here, the employer had paid only medical benefits. The court determined her injury was attributed solely to the single injury she sustained with the first employer and upheld the benefits award.

A new accident is defined as a gradual worsening of a preexisting injury due to an aggravation by work duties or a specific job-related incident. The court determined that there was no new accident. The driver testified that she was only injured once and denied her shoulder pain increased over time. Rather, she asserted that her initial injury remained essentially the same from the time of the injury until her doctor's recommendation that she cease work. She further testified that her work at the second company was "lighter work."

Read more at the WORKERSCOMP ForumTM homepage.

March 15, 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.