Posts Tagged ‘Compensation’

            John was an interstate truckdriver for over twenty years and never experienced any health issues. Because of the nature of his work, John would spend extended hours in a seated position driving his truck. John started to notice a numbness in both feet which had been getting progressively worse.  John finally got concerned enough to go to his doctor and was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis. John’s doctor was very concerned that John would develop blood clots which could easily lead to a stroke. John was advised to stop driving immediately. The doctor also prescribed Coumadin, a blood thinner, for John to take and advised John that he would be on this medication for the rest of his life. John’s doctor was adamant that John’s job duties as a truck driver wherein John was immobile for hours at a time while driving was a substantial contributing cause to the development of the deep vein thrombosis.

ISSUE:          Does John have a valid claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits?

ANSWER:     Yes. It is not unusual for truck drivers such as John to develop this problem. John will be entitled to Worker’s Compensation benefits as well as medical coverage as his prescriptions may last a lifetime. In all likelihood John will never be able to return to the type of work he was doing.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive.  Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column. 

            Karen was working as a clerk and had the choice of either eating her lunch on her employer’s premises or going out for the same. There was a strip mall across the road from Karen’s employer that included a food store and a doughnut shop. One day while on lunch break, she decided to cross the highway to get her lunch. Karen picked up a sandwich and some other food to take back to some of her co-employees. Unfortunately though, on her way across the highway, she was struck by an oncoming vehicle. As a result of being struck, Karen sustained numerous injuries which would keep her out of work for almost six months.

ISSUE:          Is Karen entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits?

ANSWER:     No. Karen would not have been considered in the scope and course of her employment. In cases like this, Karen was actually injured off of her employer’s premises and was in no way furthering her employer’s business or affairs. If Karen had been sent by one of her supervisors to pick up the food, then quite possibly she would have been considered covered.

 Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive.  Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column. 

            Tony was hired to work at the natural gas extraction sites In Pennsylvania at his home in Texas. When Tony signed the employment agreement, he stated that he would submit any Workers’ Compensation case to the state of Texas since his employer was principally based in Texas. Tony did not realize that the reason for this clause in his contract was because Texas Workers’ Compensation benefits for injured workers are far less comprehensive than those for injured workers in Pennsylvania.

            Tony was involved in heavy physical work on the jobsite and while lifting he sustained several herniated discs in his back. Tony was told that he had to pursue his compensation claim in the state of Texas and under the laws of that state.

ISSUE:          Is Tony’s employer correct?

ANSWER:     No. In the state of Pennsylvania, regardless of where the contract was entered into, an employer cannot compel an injured worker to only pursue compensation benefits as this employer attempted to do in one state. Pennsylvania has jurisdiction over any injuries occurring within the state of Pennsylvania regardless of where Tony’s employer is based. Tony would be wise to utilize the laws of Pennsylvania as opposed to the laws of Texas. For example in Texas if Tony is advised by any doctor including the doctor hired by Tony’s employer that he Tony has recovered, Tony’s medical and loss wage benefits would stop automatically. In Pennsylvania Tony would be allowed a hearing and would be allowed to present his own testimony including his treating physicians.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive.  Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column. 

   Injuries sustained asa result of hitting the ground are compensable even though fall caused by non-work related low blood sugar level.

The attorneys at DLP are representing a driver seriously injured in a 24 vehicle chain reaction accident that occurred on Interstate 81 in Scranton, PA.  The accident was caused by the carelessness and negligence of two tractor trailer truck drivers who were driving too fast for conditions when they lost control of their vehicles on the icy roadway.  DLP will be fighting the tractor trailer drivers’ respective insurance companies to get their client the compensation he deserves for the serious injuries he suffered in the accident. 

If you have been injured by a negligent tractor trailer truck driver anywhere in Pennsylvania, contact the lawyers at DLP for a free no obligation consultation.  DLP attorneys represent injured accident victims in counties throughout northeastern Pennsylvania.  In addition to tractor trailer truck accidents, we also represent injured victims of  auto accidents, motorcycle accidents, slip and fall accidents, product defect accidents, work accidents, professional negligence and medical malpractice.

         Q. Are psychological/psychiatric injuries compensable under the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act?

         A. Yes. There are three types of psychological injuries that are compensable under the Act:

(1) Mental/Physical injuries, i.e. where a psychological stimulus causes physical injury;

(2) Physical/Mental, i.e. where a physical stimulus causes a psychic injury; and

(3) Mental/Mental—where a psychological stimulus causes a psychic injury.

         These categories require different standards of proof with the “mental/mental” being the most rigorous and requiring proof of an “abnormal working condition”.

         Generally speaking,  a party filing a claim for workers’ compensation benefits must prove that the alleged injury is both work-related and disabling.  Insofar as psychological injuries are highly subjective, the occurrence of the injury and its cause must be adequately established. Where the alleged psychological injury was not caused by physical injury, the claimant must submit evidence to prove (a) that he suffered a psychological injury and (b) that the injury was more than a subjective reaction to normal working conditions.  The claimant must further establish that the working conditions or work events are not merely perceived or imagined. Whether or not the working conditions are ”abnormal” is a question which relates to the cause of the injury. Pennsylvania courts have ruled that while abnormal working conditions may be sufficient to link the injury to the employment, subjective reactions to normal working conditions will not meet the claimant’s burden of proof . 

        Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive.  Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column

     The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has ruled that a denial of workers compensation benefits was proper in a case involving the issue of whether the injured worker (“claimant”) was in the course and scope of employment when the injury occurred. In Penn State University v. WCAB (Smith), the Court has determined that evidence was insufficient to establish that the workers’ compensation claimant, Mr. Smith, injured himself while in the “course and scope” of his employment.  Smith broke both of his ankles when he jumped down a flight of stairs while on his lunch break. Typically, an injury is compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act only if the injury arises in the course of employment and is causally related thereto. An injury may be sustained in the course of employment under the Workers’ Compensation Act where the employee is injured on or off the employer’s premises while actually engaged in furtherance of the employer’s business or affairs. However, an activity that does not further the affairs of the employer will take the employee out of the course and scope of employment and serve as a basis for denial of the claim. Generally speaking, neither small temporary departures from work to administer to personal comforts or convenience, nor inconsequential or innocent departures will remove the claimant from the course and scope of employment.

     In the day of his injury, Mr. Smith was cleaning dorm rooms at Perry Hall for Employer’s Housing Department.  Claimant left Perry Hall to take his 30 minute unpaid lunch leave at Bruno’s, an on-campus dining facility where Claimant had an employer-sponsored meal plan. Claimant was walking from Perry Hall to Bruno’s on a walkway that included three flights of stairs. He intentionally jumped down the second flight of approximately twelve steps, landing very hard with his feet flat and fractured both ankles.

     The Court determined that Mr. Smith’s actions in light of the nature of his employment (performing housekeeping or cooking duties) could not be viewed as furthering employer’s business or affairs noting that he voluntarily jumped down a flight of stairs on a “whim,” and that he had thoughts of doing it before the injury date. The Court went on to state that he did not trip or fall down the stairs, but walked up to the edge and jumped off the stairs and injured himself upon landing.  The Court concluded that the employer did not encourage in any way Claimant to jump a flight of stairs during his lunch break and that the facts did not establish that Smith’s actions furthered a specific interest of Employer.

                Paul had sustained a serious back injury while working and had been on Workers’ Compensation for over one year. Despite several operations, Paul’s back was not better and to return to work at any type of gainful employment seemed unlikely. After Paul’s injury,  he had developed other problems involving his shoulder as well as heart issues.

ISSUE:          Paul was wondering whether he could apply for Social Security since he was already receiving Workers’ Compensation benefits.

ANSWER:     Yes. Social Security is a Federal program that provides benefits for the disabled and Workers’ Compensation is a state program. Social Security uses a different standard and will take into consideration all of Paul’s problems regardless of whether they are work related or not. Thus his heart condition and his shoulder condition will also be considered in determining whether Paul is entitled to Social Security benefits.

            If Paul is deemed eligible back to the date of his work injury for Social Security, Paul will entitled to Medicare coverage on his non-work related medical bills as well. Paul’s monthly Social Security check will be less since Paul is collecting State Workers’ Compensation benefits as the Federal Government gets a credit to a certain extent for those benefits.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive.  Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.