Officer can't prove misdiagnosis created exception to time frame

In Connecticut, to fall under the medical care exception to the one-year statute of limitations, a worker must prove that the employer previously furnished care for the specific condition in the claim filed past the statute of limitations or that the condition was causally related to a timely reported incident for which the employer furnished medical care.

Case name: Carter v. Town of Clinton, No. SC 18200 (Conn. 05/01/12).

Ruling: The Connecticut Supreme Court held that an officer was not entitled to benefits for his myocardial infarction.

Detox program, morphine pump reasonable and necessary for chronic pain (10/03/11)
Liver disease resulting from treating work injury is compensable (06/30/11)
Laborer's disease caused by infested warehouse blocks suit (07/23/12)
Video evidence boots detective's limitations arguments (01/30/12)
Sitter's independent contractor status undermines benefits (10/08/12)

What it means: In Connecticut, to fall under the medical care exception to the one-year statute of limitations, a worker must prove that the employer previously furnished care for the specific condition in the claim filed past the statute of limitations or that the condition was causally related to a timely reported incident for which the employer furnished medical care.

Summary: A police officer for a city sustained a shoulder injury while working. He had surgery and returned to regular duty. Later, he had pain when he was attempting to lift a person. He also felt dizziness, a shortness of breath, and a crushing pain. He had surgery to the scapula and spine. He retired because of his injuries. He underwent two electrocardiograms, which were described as normal. Subsequently, he suffered an acute myocardial infarction and underwent surgery. The officer sought benefits, claiming that his shoulder condition was misdiagnosed and was actually caused by a cardiac problem. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the officer was not entitled to benefits for his myocardial infarction.

The officer argued that the shoulder incident caused him to experience signs of angina, so his claim fell under the medical care exception to the one-year statute of limitations. To fall under the medical care exception, the officer had to prove that the city previously furnished care for the specific condition in the claim filed past the statute of limitations or that the condition was causally related to a timely reported incident for which the city furnished medical care.

The court concluded that the officer failed to show that the medical care exception applied. He did not attempt to show that the city furnished medical care for his heart disease after the lifting incident. The court found that he did not show a link between his myocardial infarction and the lifting incident. The court did not find a misdiagnosis or that the city provided treatment for symptoms of heart disease.

Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.

June 11, 2012

Newsletter Sign-up