|
|||
|
|
|
Pop Goes the Knee
An unfortunate knee injury happened while an employee was clocked in, but was it really a work-related injury?
A worker for a security company injured his left knee on the job. While stationed at his desk, he stood up to reach for forms stored on a shelf and felt pain and a pop in his knee. He immediately sat back down in his chair. He did not strike his knee against his desk and did not trip or stumble. He sought benefits. The security company denied benefits, claiming that the injury did not arise out of his employment. Two weeks after the injury, an orthopedic surgeon diagnosed tears to the ligament and meniscus. He performed arthroscopic surgery. After a period of recovery and therapy, the worker reached maximum medical improvement. The surgeon assigned a permanent impairment rating of 4 percent to the body as a whole and 9 percent to the lower left extremity. The worker returned to work with no restrictions, but he experienced continuous pain in his knee. As a result of the injury, the worker had nearly $12,000 in unpaid medical expenses.
On appeal, the worker argued that the trial court incorrectly decided his injuries were idiopathic, precluding an award of benefits. Was the trial court correct in denying benefits to the worker? A. No. There was no evidence of a pre-existing condition. B. Yes. The worker suffered from a serious injury from a simple work activity. C. Yes. Rising from a chair to reach for a form is a hazardous activity. How the court ruled: A. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the worker was entitled to benefits. Veler v. Wackenhut Services, Inc., No. E2010-00965-WC-R3-WC (Tenn. 01/28/11). The court explained that no evidence showed a prior condition that might have created a risk of a serious knee injury that was personal to the worker. The injuries were causally related to the performance of his job responsibilities. The worker's duties included gaining access to forms to be filled out, and his work required him to reach above his head to retrieve the forms. The court said that the worker was entitled to medical costs. The court sent the case back to the trial court for an award of benefits. B is incorrect. The court said although the case was unusual, the basic principle of workers' compensation is its remedial purpose. The court explained that an employee is favored when there is reasonable doubt surrounding the compensability of a claim. Absolute certainty of causation is not required. C is incorrect. The court said that rising from a chair is not typically hazardous. The court mentioned that the circumstances were indistinguishable from an injury suffered by an employee while bending over to pick up a tool or another instrument related to work injuries. CHRISTINA DIFONTE is the legal editor of the WorkersComp Forum. This feature is not intended as instructional material or to replace legal advice. Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage. February 24, 2011 Copyright 2011© LRP Publications |
|
|
|
Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved.
May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.
|