News & Publications

WORKERS COMPENSATION CASE WATCH

In Mizelle v. Holiday Ice, Inc., claimant got into the employer’s truck to make a delivery and started driving without putting his seat belt on.  He knew the law required him to wear a seat belt but admitted that he did not put it on and intended to put it on later during the trip.  Within five minutes of starting the trip he lost control of the truck and was injured when he was ejected from it during the crash.

WORKERS COMPENSATION CASE WATCH

The claimant was injured at the auto glass company he owns.   The business had a workers’ compensation insurance policy but the insurer argued that the claimant was not an employee as defined by the Act so he was not subject to the policy’s coverage.

We are surrounded by recording devices: smart phones, dashboard cameras, recording doorbells, smart home devices, surveillance cameras, and drones. Chances are that if an accident happened, one of these devices captured it. Video of an employee’s accident can be a key piece of evidence, but we cannot use that evidence if it was erased.

Failing to preserve video evidence is called ‘‘ spoliation .’’ Preserving evidence is an important part of defending a workers’ compensation claim. In 2019, a statute was enacted governing spoliation. It states that

WORKERS COMPENSATION CASE WATCH

In Morres v. Earth Treks Crystal City Climb, the claimant worked at a recreational climbing gym.  The employer required employees to clock in before their shifts and prohibited employees from performing personal climbs while on the clock.  Before clocking in for her shift, the claimant did a warm-up climb, which she said was in preparation for performing rope maintenance.  She climbed with another co-worker, who was not scheduled to work that day.  During her warm-up climb, she took a practice fall.  She was injured in the fall.

The Deputy Commissioner found that the claimant was engaged in personal, recreational rock-climbing and was not in the course of her employment when the injury occurred.  On Review, the full Commission agreed, stating “…we do not find whatever ephemeral benefit the employer might receive from the claimant sharpening her climbing skills sufficient to bring

WORKERS COMPENSATION CASE WATCH

On January 6, 2020, the Commission briefly addressed the issue of telemedicine in the treating physician relationship.  In Carter v. Mondelez International, the claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and was treating with a psychologist for PTSD. 

WORKERS COMPENSATION CASE WATCH

In Sorour v. Avalon Transportation, the claimant, a limousine driver, was injured in a single vehicle accident. At his supervisor’s request, the claimant was driving to the company’s office.  As he exited the highway he hit the guardrail on the exit ramp at a low speed, causing his injuries.

JLARC Recommends 25 Changes - What you must know about JLARC's Report

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (“JLARC”) conducted a review of the Virginia workers’ compensation system with a special focus on the use of disease presumptions. The JLARC report was released on December 16, 2019 and included 25 recommended changes. This article includes the following:

• What JLARC's Research Included
• Summary of JLARC's Findings
• Highlights from JLARC's 25 Recommendations
• Important Links to the Actual Report and Recommendations

For this study, JLARC staff conducted research that included:

• Structured interviews of workers’ compensation attorneys (claimant and defense); leadership and staff of state agencies; representatives of local and state organizations representing police, firefighters, and emergency medical services personnel; and insurers;

1.      Employer’s Applications for Hearing

The Commission closely examines these items to determine if the Application is technically correct:

a.    Claimant’s address

b.    Grounds for the Application

c.     Relief requested

d.    Compensation rate

e.    Date compensation was paid through

f.     Presence of supporting documentation

g.    Application signed

h.    Application dated

i.      Whether the claimant and the attorney, if represented, were sent a copy of the Application.

2.      Unauthorized Practice of Law

The Commission provided these tips for adjusters about the unauthorized practice of law:

a.    An adjuster cannot appear at an evidentiary hearing to advocate for an insurer or

WORKERS COMPENSATION CASE WATCH

In a November 19, 2019 Review, the Full Commission held in Bayne v. Horizon Behavioral Health that the claimant did not establish a mechanical change as a result of her accident, and therefore, did not establish a compensable injury. 

The claimant, a clinical mental health examiner, alleged an injury to her low back as a result of an eight-year old child charging into her ten to fifteen times, causing her back to strike a horizontal door handle.  The claimant had a history of four lumbar surgeries prior to this incident.  The claimant testified that she felt a sharp increase in pain as a result of this incident.  In affirming the Deputy Commissioner’s denial, the Full Commission cited Dr. Vanichkachorn, who treated the claimant before and after the alleged work accident.  The doctor opined that there was no evidence of any structural or mechanical change in comparing diagnostic studies taken before versus after the incident.  He opined

Workers' Compensation Case Watch

In Manion v. Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Ctr., the claimant needed a new physician because her doctor was no longer providing pain management. The employer asked a nurse case manager to find a new doctor for the claimant and to obtain a Functional Capacity Evaluation (“FCE”) from the physician. The nurse got an FCE referral from the new doctor and scheduled the appointment. She told the claimant about the appointment in person and left her several message about it. The claimant said she would not attend and cancelled the FCE.                                                                                                                                   

The defendant filed an Employer’s Application for Hearing alleging refusal of medical treatment because the claimant did not go to the FCE. The Deputy Commissioner denied the Application because the scheduled FCE was not medically necessary treatment. On review, the Full Commission cited the longstanding principal that the claimant’s medical treatment is directed by the treating physician and not the defendants. They noted that a