Posts Tagged ‘heart’

            John visited his doctor for a medical check-up and was advised that his cholesterol readings were unsatisfactory. His doctor prescribed Crestor to help improve his bad cholesterol levels. Not long afterwards, John started to notice a lot more muscle stiffness and aching as well as an unintentional weight gain which came on for no apparent reason.

            John’s symptoms became progressively worse and he was examined by several doctors who all had a problem pinpointing the diagnosis for him. Finally, John was diagnosed with Rhabdomyolysis. This is a disease which is basically a break-down of the muscle fibers resulting in the release of those fibers into the blood stream. As a result of this, John eventually developed kidney failure as well as heart problems.

            There now exists substantial scientific literature establishing a link between the symptoms and ultimate kidney failure as well as heart problems that John was experiencing and the medication Crestor. John may well have a cause of action for a law suit against the manufacturer of Crestor for the side effects of the drug that he experienced.

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. 

                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. 

Update- In an earlier post (set forth below) I discussed subrogation rights of an employer who has paid Heart and Lung Act benefits to an injured employee.  On January 28, 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a decision In Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh holding that Heart and Lung and Act Benefits are not subrogable. 

        Under the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act, when an employer has paid benefits to an injured worker as a result of a work injury that was caused by the negligence of a third party, the employer is entitled to recoup whatever benefits it has paid from the injured employee’s recovery from the negligent third party. This concept, known as subrogation, often comes in to play when an employee is injured in a motor vehicle accident while in the course and scope of employment.
Generally speaking, the employer’s subrogation rights are absolute with regard to recouping payments made under the workers Compensation Act. An interesting issue has arisen in this Commonwealth with respect to subrogation rights of a municipality with respect to benefits paid under the Heart and Lung Act. The Heart and Lung act addresses payments made to a certain class of employees (i.e. police officers, firefighters, etc.) for injuries incurred while “in the performance of (their) duties”. The key distinction between workers compensation wage loss benefits and Heart and Lung benefits is that workers compensation benefits are generally 2/3 (or 66.66%) of an employee’s pre-injury earnings while Heart and Lung benefits are 100% of the employee’s pre-injury pay.
In 2009, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court addressed the issue of a municipality’s subrogation rights relative to payment of Heart and Lung benefits. In Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh, the court held that an employer that pays benefits under the Heart and Lung Act is entitled to subrogate against the injured employee’s third party recovery. This decision effectively reversed a prior Commonwealth Court ruling from 2002 that held an employer, while having a right to subrogation relative to benefits paid under the Workers Compensation Act, did not have the right to subrogate as to the Heart and Lung benefits paid.
Again, as indicated above, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has reversed the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court and has held that Heart and Lung and Act Benefits are not subrogable.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has ruled that the employer who pays an injured employee wage loss benefits under the Heart and Lung Act is entitled to subrogate against the injured employee’s recovery against a negligent third party. In Oliver vs. City of Pittsburgh, the Court ruled that Heart and Lung Act benefits must be given the same effect as workers’ compensation benefits as the similar purpose of the two benefit schemes requires consistent treatment noting that benefits paid under the Heart and Lung Act should be treated in the same manner as payments made pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Court concluded that the legislature intended the employer’s subrogation right entitlement to apply to Heart and Lung benefits as well as Workers’ Compensation benefits.

Matt and his lovely wife, Kitty, had been married for 30 years. Kitty would always prepare Matt’s lunch which consisted of a kielbasa sandwich, and chocolate Tasty Kakes. Matt worked at a local lumber yard as a jack-of-all-trades.

On April 22nd, Kitty got a call from the employer that Matt had had a serious heart attack while at work. Matt was taken directly by ambulance to the hospital but, unfortunately, he expired before Kitty arrived at the hospital. Matt and Kitty had been able to save very little and whatever extra money they had, they usually gave to their children. Kitty was able to get Social Security but sought advice as to whether or not she would be able to collect workers’ compensation death benefits in her capacity as the widow of Matt.

Question: Is Kitty entitled to workers’ compensation benefits?

Answer: The mere fact that Matt had his heart attack while at work does not establish a compensable workers’ compensation claim. Kitty, through her attorney, would have to show that Matt’s work in some way caused Matt’s heart attack. If this could be done at all, it would have to be through showing the fact that Matt was performing heavy duty activity at some time prior to the fatal attack. Kitty would also have to have a doctor verify that Matt’s activity was either a precipitating or aggravating cause of Matt’s underlying cardiac condition, thus, triggering the heart attack.

In this particular case, Matt’s heart attack was purely coincidental to the fact that he was at work and really had no relationship to the activities Matt was doing while Matt was at work. Unfortunately, Kitty will not have a claim for death benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

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.