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

 

Different diagnoses, medications, surgical recommendations justify benefits

In Virginia, a worker's different diagnoses and treatments before and after a workplace accident can help show that the injury was caused by a work-related incident and not by his preexisting condition.

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

Case name: Hyatt Regency Crystal City v. Spencer, No. 1007-10-4 (Va. Ct. App. 01/25/11).

Ruling: The Virginia Court of Appeals found that a cook's right shoulder injury was not related to a preexisting condition so it awarded him benefits.

What it means: In Virginia, a worker's different diagnoses and treatments before and after a workplace accident can help show that the injury was caused by a work-related incident and not by his preexisting condition.

Summary: A cook for a hotel slipped on a wet floor in the restroom at his workplace and fell, hitting his right shoulder against a sink. Before the fall, he sought medical treatment for right shoulder pain. He required further treatment after the fall and sought benefits. The hotel argued that there was no causal connection between the cook's fall at work and his shoulder injury and that his injury was a preexisting condition. The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed and awarded benefits to the cook.

The court said the cook had different diagnoses and treatments before and after the fall. The court noted that the cook was undergoing treatment for tendonitis before the fall and was diagnosed with a right shoulder strain, contusion, and sprain after the fall. The cook received injections both before and after the fall, but they consisted of different drugs. Additionally, the surgical recommendations before and after the fall differed.

The hotel also argued that the cook failed to disclose his prior shoulder injury to two doctors, so their opinions should not have been relied on. The court disagreed. One doctor noted that the cook's past medical history was "noncontributory," and the second noted that it was "negative." The court said these terms did not necessarily establish that the cook did not inform the doctors of his previous shoulder problems. Rather, the terms could have been interpreted to indicate a lack of foundation for alternative causation.

Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.

March 21, 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.