October 24, 2024 Case Analysis Report

Welcome to your October 24, 2024 edition of Workers' Compensation Insights! You may have noticed that I did not send a newsletter out last week. I had some family matters to attend to which required all my attention. But, not to worry. You didn’t miss anything. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department did not issue any cases last week having to do with workers’ compensation issues. Did they know I wasn’t able to write a newsletter last Thursday? Did I email them a dozen times and call them every hour on the hour to tell them? I guess we’ll never know…

Navigating the world of workers' compensation can often feel overwhelming, especially if you've been injured at work and are worried about what comes next. In this newsletter, we'll explore three recent court cases that shed light on different aspects of workers' compensation. Our aim is to help you understand the legal landscape a bit better and ease some of the uncertainty you might be feeling. Remember, these case analyses are for educational purposes and should not be taken as professional advice. Ok, with the business of disclaimers done, let’s get into it. 

Matter of Purvi Thakkar vs. Walmart Associates, Inc.

In our first case, Purvi Thakkar, a pharmacy technician at Walmart, slipped on water and took a nasty fall at work back in 2015. This unfortunate incident led to injuries in her neck, back, shoulder, and knee. Initially, these injuries were acknowledged, and she was awarded temporary total disability benefits. But as time went on, Purvi's situation became more complicated. She developed chronic pain and conditions like carpal tunnel syndrome, depression, and post-concussion syndrome, making her case a lot more challenging.

At first, there were rulings that supported her claim of permanent total disability. However, not all the doctors agreed on the extent of her injuries. Conflicting medical opinions led to a series of appeals and reversals. The crux of the issue was whether her condition had indeed reached a point of maximum medical improvement and if the evidence truly supported a permanent total disability.

In the end, the court decided that the case needed another look. They sent it back to the Workers' Compensation Board for further review, especially because the medical reports were inconsistent and needed clarification.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much to take away from this case that can be applied across the board. The case involved very fact-specific issues that, if changed by any degree, might entirely change the outcome of the case.

If there was something to take away, it would be this.  If you find yourself in a similar situation, it's crucial to have thorough and consistent medical documentation. The evidence from your doctors can make or break your case, so ensure every detail of your condition is clearly recorded and explained. Clear communication between you and your doctor is key.

Matter of Victor Germano vs. Dynamic Appliances, Inc.

Victor Germano faced a challenging situation when he injured his right shoulder at work in 2015. Then, in 2019, while helping a customer load an air conditioning unit into a car, he hurt his right elbow. Germano's medical evaluations revealed different percentages of loss of use for his shoulder, elbow, and wrist. His treating doctor concluded that his injuries from 2019 resulted in a 33.33% loss of use of his right arm, on top of previous injuries.

However, the insurance fund handling his case argued that the new loss should be offset by previous compensations he received for his shoulder. The crux of the dispute was whether his recent injury contributed additional loss beyond the prior ones.

The court ultimately ruled in Germano's favor, acknowledging that his recent injury was distinct and caused further loss of use. The prior compensations were not deducted from his new claim.

If you've suffered multiple injuries to the same body part, clearly document how each injury uniquely affects you. Detailed and distinct medical evidence for each injury can help ensure you receive fair compensation. This ties in with the Thakkar case above. The more information your doctor has, the better. The clearer the medical opinion, the better.

Matter of Monique Lewis vs. NYC Administration for Children Services

Our last case involves, Monique Lewis, a social worker with the NYC Administration for Children Services. Ms. Lewis encountered an unexpected challenge while performing a home visit. During the visit, a family's dog jumped on her, causing chest trauma and bringing back traumatic memories of a previous dog attack she had experienced in her youth. Monique filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which included not only her physical chest injury but also psychological issues like PTSD, anxiety, and acute stress disorder.

Initially, her claim for the physical injury was accepted, but her psychological claims were denied. The employer argued that the stress from the incident wasn't greater than what other social workers typically face. However, the court found that Monique's psychological injuries were directly linked to the physical trauma caused by the dog, which was a recognized workplace accident. Because of this, the case was sent back to the Workers' Compensation Board to determine if there was a direct causal connection between the accident and her psychological conditions, without comparing her experience to that of her peers.

I can offer a few general takeaways from this case. First, be aware that the workers’ compensation law covers both physical and psychological (or mental) injuries. Second, the specific facts of each case dictate which standard is used to analyze the case. In general, if a psychological injury stems from a part of a case that involved a physical injury, the Court usually looks to medical experts for their opinion on causal relationship. If the case involves only psychological injuries (and no physical injuries), the Court will generally compare the claimant’s work-related stress to their peers’ work-related stress. If the claimant’s work-related stress is no greater than that of their peers, the law generally requires disallowance.

Additional mini-takeaway: If you, a friend, or family member are a first responder and experience a psychological injury from a work-related emergency, the Workers’ Compensation Board cannot disallow your claim, even if your stress was no greater than that of your peers. This can be tricky so if you’re involved in a situation like this, please find competent legal representation.

I hope this was helpful, informative, educational, and enjoyable. That’s all I have for today so stay tuned and I’ll see you next week.