Medical evidence doesn't support obesity as part of work injury

In Pennsylvania, unequivocal medical testimony is necessary to establish a causal connection between an injury and a work-related cause.

Case name: Totten v. Frank T. Lutter, Inc., 26 PAWCLR 90 (Pa. W.C.A.B. 2011).

Ruling: The Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Appeals Board amended the workers' compensation judge's grant of a worker's review petition to exclude obesity as a work-related injury. In addition, the board remanded for consideration of opinions regarding an alleged back injury.

Lack of fixed work site makes car crash compensable (02/25/13)
Failure to tell doctor pain was work-related doesn't curb benefits (02/25/13)
Employer liable for medical care related to latent, progressive injury (02/25/13)
Claim timely filed within 2 years of fatal heart attack (11/01/12)
Late payments, denial of treatment entitle worker to attorney's fees (09/30/11)

What it means: In Pennsylvania, unequivocal medical testimony is necessary to establish a causal connection between an injury and a work-related cause.

Summary: The board ruled that the WCJ erred in finding that a worker's weight gain was work-related. The worker sustained work-related vestibular concussion and radiculopathy of the left arm. He filed a review petition alleging that the description of his injury was incorrect, and he sought to add post-concussion syndrome and attendant depression, cervical sprain, and a shoulder injury. The WCJ granted the petition, adding these conditions, as well as obesity. The board amended the WCJ's decision to remove obesity as a work-related injury because the nexus between the injury and the work-related cause was not readily discernible. The worker testified that he had gained weight since the injury and attributed it to his inactivity. A reference to weight gain was made in the medical records, but there was no discussion of causation.

Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.

July 25, 2011

Newsletter Sign-up