No Medical Treatment or Disability? Not Compensable.
In a recent win by attorney Ilene Feldmeier, she successfully defended a claim where an alleged injury occurred while the claimant was employed by her client and was then subsequently injured at a another employer. For the injury that Ms. Feldmeier was defending against, the injury did not require any immediate medical treatment, claimant only received medication and minimal physical therapy, and the injury did not keep the claimant from working. The second injury was defended by a different law firm.
Ms. Feldmeier was able to win this case because she successfully argued that an accident at work is not a compensable injury unless the accident requires medial treatment or causes disability. It is important to keep in mind that just because an injury occurs, it might not be compensable injury if there isn't significant medical treatment and the injury does not keep the claimant from continuing work.
_______________________________________________________________________
Surgery Resulting in Further Injury
In a recent victory for attorney Brad Miller, his client had originally filed an admission on the claim and voluntarily paid for carpel tunnel surgery. As a result of the surgery, claimant admittedly developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. After reviewing the case, Mr. Miller recommended that respondents attempt to withdraw the admission of liability and contest the compensability of the claim. Specifically, the recommendation was to contest whether the carpal tunnel condition was work-related. If the carpal tunnel condition was not work-related, there would be no responsibility for treating the Complex Regional Pain Syndrome.
The ALJ ultimately found that the carpel tunnel condition was not work related but nevertheless held that respondents should pay for the Complex Regional Pain Syndrome because they had paid for the surgery. Mr. Miller recommended an appeal on the grounds that respondents are not liable for the results of a the surgery if the claim is later found to not be compensable. The ICAO Order came back in agreement with Mr. Miller's argument and held that respondents could not be liable for the Complex Regional Pain Syndrome because there was no occupational disease in the first instance.
_______________________________________________________________________
No Objection to Admission Within 30 Days? Claim Closed.
Attorneys Ilene Feldmeier and Brad Miller recently had an ordered affirmed by the Court of Appeals for a case in which the claimant attempted to argue that because the final admission was mistakenly sent to the claimant's former address, the claimant had not been properly served. However, subsequently the claimant received copies of the admission on several occasions at the correct address and did not object within 30 days of receiving it.
Ms. Feldmeier and Mr. Miller argued that because the admission had been received by the
claimant and they had not objected within the 30 day time period, that the case was closed. The judge agreed with this argument, and confirmed the claim was closed. In general, if an admission was not served properly, the claim will remain open. However, in a claim where the the claimant receives the admission, even if it was improperly served, and does not object within 30 days, then the respondents can argue that the claim is still closed.
