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

 

Doctors' opinions that injury was caused by sneeze properly rejected

In Oregon, medical opinions that do not consider that a worker's injury was work-related may be rejected as unpersuasive.

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

Case name: DS Waters of America, LP v. Prabucki, No. A143117 (Or. Ct. App. 01/12/11).

Ruling: The Oregon Court of Appeals held that a worker was injured on the job and was entitled to benefits for a disk herniation.

What it means: In Oregon, medical opinions that do not consider that a worker's injury was work-related may be rejected as unpersuasive.

Summary: A worker claimed that he began to experience neck pain while raising his arms to load coffee products into a delivery truck at work. His pain worsened with a sneeze. An MRI revealed that he had a disk herniation, as well as spondylosis. The employer denied the workers' compensation claim. The worker's doctor and surgeon opined that the worker's neck condition was work-related. In contrast, doctors who provided the employer with independent medical examinations opined that the worker's injury was not work-related. They also opined that the worker's on-the-job activity combined with a preexisting degenerative disease to cause the disk herniation and the preexisting condition was the major contributing cause of the combined condition. Their opinions assumed that the worker's symptoms were associated with sneezing or coughing rather than a work injury. The Oregon Court of Appeals held that substantial evidence supported a finding that the worker experienced his injury on the job.

The employer contended that its doctors' opinions should have been given greater weight. The court said that the doctors did not consider or weigh a contribution from the worker's work, so the opinions were rejected as unpersuasive.

The employer also argued that one doctor's addendum report was incorrectly excluded from evidence. The court said the report was based on the same underlying premise of the doctor's earlier opinion that the worker's symptoms were triggered by a sneeze rather than work activity. Even if the report was considered, the outcome of the case would not have been different.

Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.

March 7, 2011

Copyright 2011© 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.