There are many types of work, especially in construction, where an experienced Texas comp lawyer knows workers may be shared or borrowed by employers. This can create some complications, noted the Texas comp lawyer in the following case. But the Texas comp lawyer successfully explained the proper procedures for requiring the responsible employer to pay for Texas comp benefits: helping to avoid delays in the injured worker’s award.

The Texas comp lawyer had already won an agreement before the hearing started, that the injured road construction worker did have a serious, disabling injury. The Texas comp lawyer had proven the injury happened when the worker was hit by an automobile, while removing warning cones from a roadway. The Texas comp lawyer had shown how the injured worker was working on a job site of Employer 1 at the time of his injury. The only issue was whether Employer 1 or Employer 2 was the injured worker’s “Employer” at that time, for purposes of making payments under the Texas Comp Act. The Texas comp lawyer noted that the owners of Employer 1 and Employer 2 had a personal relationship; and that the two companies were in the same business of road construction.

The Texas comp lawyer noted how, on occasion, the companies would “loan” or borrow each other’s laborers. The Texas comp lawyer explained, through wage records, that the injured worker was usually an employee of Employer 2. But on the day of the accident, other wage records (obtained by the Texas comp lawyer) showed Employer 1 was actually to pay his wages. The way this was done, showed the Texas comp lawyer, was that the injured worker remained on the payroll of Employer 2, and Employer 1 acted as a “borrowing Employer.” The Texas comp lawyer showed how Employer 1 reimbursed Employer 2 for the costs of salary, taxes, and insurance. This included, emphasized the Texas comp lawyer, workers’ compensation insurance.

Texas Comp Lawyer Showed Which Employer Had “Control” Over Work

The Texas comp lawyer’s evidence proved that Employer 1 had control over the injured worker’s work duties and location, the day of the injury. The Texas comp lawyer explained how Employer 1 transported the injured worker to the job site on the date of the injury. Additionally, Employer 1 provided all necessary materials and tools to do his work, showed the Texas comp lawyer. And in what would be a pivotal point, the Texas comp lawyer proved the supervisor of the project at the time of the injury was also an employee of Employer 1.

Based on the Texas comp lawyer arguments, the hearing officer agreed that the injured worker was what’s called a “borrowed servant,” working for Employer 1 at the time of his injury. Insurer 1 (representing Employer 1) at first argued Employer 1 and Employer 2 had an “oral agreement,” saying Employer 2 had kept the right of control over the injured worker. But when pressed by the Texas comp lawyer, Insurer 1 couldn’t show any reliable evidence of such an agreement. Instead, the hearing officer was fully persuaded by the Texas comp lawyer that no such agreement actually existed.

Texas Comp Lawyer Used Work Records To Show Supervision Of Work

Having an experienced Texas comp lawyer was essential. In this case, the Texas comp lawyer knew how to get important work records, showing whose supervisor was supposed to be on the site at the time of the accident. Insurer 1 also argued (unsuccessfully) that Employer 2 had “some” right of control over the injured worker. The Texas comp lawyer showed there were no real facts to support this argument, either. The evidence by the Texas comp lawyer clearly showed that Employer 1’s supervisor at the job site directed all aspects of the job. The Texas comp lawyer had even asked if Employer 2 had any input about doing the work at the time of the injury. The answer to the Texas comp lawyer was a clear “No.” Finally, the Texas comp lawyer showed Employer 2 did not even get any financial benefit from lending its employee to Employer 1.

The real test, the Texas comp lawyer correctly insisted, was to find out whether the employee was subject to the specific direction and control of the borrowing Employer. Applying that test, the Appeals Panel agreed with the Texas comp lawyer that Employer 2 had no right of control over the injured worker at the time of his injury. The Texas Comp lawyer had properly proceeded and the award was completely upheld.

A Texas comp lawyer works to help make the system concentrate on the facts of an injury to a worker. This can be especially important whenever an insurer or the Employer may try to find some legal obstacle to making the award. For any injured worker, or in this case, where the worker was “loaned,” it was crucial to quickly find an experienced Texas comp lawyer.

A workers comp lawyer knows how an injured worker may need to borrow money or have help from family during their injury. In the following case, an employer tried to use these sources of money to wrongly stop benefits payments…and the employee’s workers comp lawyer successfully stopped the employer from misinterpreting these deposits into the employee’s savings account. The hearing officer in the case agreed with the workers comp lawyer, and made a finding that the injured worker was entitled to supplemental income benefits (or SIB’s) even though he did have some additional money (loans from his parents), and also a little self-employment. The insurance company appealed this decision, claiming to have gotten evidence to prove their argument… “after” the hearing was over, stressed the workers comp lawyer. The injured employee’s workers comp lawyer then successfully defeated the insurer’s arguments.

Workers Comp Lawyer Defended Right To Part-Time Self-Employment

The workers comp lawyer answered the insurer, saying the hearing officer correctly decided the injured worker was entitled to SIBs. The insurer’s real argument, the workers comp lawyer pointed out, was that the injured worker “could have worked more,” and claimed he didn’t make a good faith effort to get work, based on these “extra” deposits. But the workers comp lawyer stressed very detailed medical findings of a serious disability.

Besides, the workers comp lawyer noted how the hearing officer was the most important judge of the evidence. The hearing officer heard all the evidence from the workers comp lawyer and from the employee himself, as he told the workers comp lawyer about the injury and his job search. As the trier of fact, the hearing officer clearly agreed with the workers comp lawyer about the strength of the medical evidence. Based on evidence presented by the workers comp lawyer, the hearing officer reasonably decided the injured worker (a) was not required to get additional employment, once the workers comp lawyer proved employment at a part-time job and (b) was being self-employed, consistent with his ability to work.

Workers Comp Lawyer: A Serious Injury With Lasting Effects

The insurance company also argued the injured worker’s underemployment during the qualifying period wasn’t caused by his impairment. The workers comp lawyer noted the injured worker’s underemployment was also a direct result of the impairment. This was backed up by evidence from the workers comp lawyer that this injured employee had a very serious injury, with lasting effects, and just “could not reasonably do the type of work he’d done right before his injury.” In this case, the workers comp lawyer showed that the injured worker’s injury resulted in a permanent impairment. The employer didn’t prove (or disprove) anything specific about the extent of the injury, the workers comp lawyer observed, but only suggested “possibilities.”

Employer Was Stopped From Use Of “Confusing” Evidence By Workers Comp Lawyer

For example, the workers comp lawyer said the insurance company emphasized “evidence” obtained after the hearing. Yet the insurance company said this came from a deposition taken three days before the hearing. At that time, the workers comp lawyer pressed, it learned that the injured worker had a personal bank account for depositing wages. The insurance company subpoenaed copies of the injured worker’s deposit slips, and got the records after the hearing from the workers comp lawyer. The insurance company argued that the deposit slips “proved” that the injured worker earned more than 80% of his pre-injury wages. But the workers comp lawyer stressed how the insurer should have worked harder to prove this argument before the hearing.

Specifically, the workers comp lawyer pointed out that documents submitted for the first time (on appeal) are generally not accepted…unless they are newly discovered evidence, noted the workers comp lawyer. The evidence offered by the insurance company wasn’t newly discovered evidence, proved the workers comp lawyer. The injured worker testified to his workers comp lawyer that the deposits included wages from his self-employment and “money I borrowed from my mother.” The evidence didn’t, proved the workers comp lawyer, show how much (if any, noted the workers comp lawyer) was deposited from the injured worker’s wages versus how much was from borrowing. Though the insurance company had known about the evidence, it made no request to get the evidence, emphasized the workers comp lawyer. Nor, concluded the workers comp lawyer, did the insurance company ask for the hearing record to stay open for evidence once it was received…which, the workers comp lawyer stressed, they had a right to have done. The Appeals Panel agreed with the workers comp lawyer and “refused” to consider the ‘evidence’ attached to the insurance company’s appeal. The workers comp lawyer had completely defended the worker’s award.

There’s often uncertainty about how long an injury may last, an experienced workers comp lawyer knows. In this case, talking with an experienced workers comp lawyer helped deal with issues from this uncertainty. For anyone who survives a period of injury, through self-employment or family loans, it’s important to discuss these matters as soon as possible with a knowledgeable workers comp lawyer.

Texas compensation rules, according to a workers compensation lawyer in the following case, rest on basic ideas of what’s fair. But to be sure one woman protected her rights, the injured worker also needed the help of a workers compensation lawyer, when her employer’s insurance company tried to avoid paying full benefits. The employer’s insurance company appealed a decision, won by the injured employee’s workers compensation lawyer, about whether the worker could have made more money at another job, with more hours. The hearing officer had settled the dispute by agreeing, the employee’s workers compensation lawyer had proven, a right to all the supplemental income benefits (or SIBs) the worker had received.

On appeal, the only issue the insurer could raise was about the amount of time the worker was physically able to work. The injured worker, emphasized the workers compensation lawyer, for six months, was able to work only at most 20 hours per week (4 hours per day, 5 days per week), getting $200 per month as a private health aide nurse. Six months later, the injured worker’s position became full-time (8 hours per day and 5 days per week), and she began receiving $400 per month. The insurance company argued the hearing officer’s decision about the employee’s having searched for work the last six months. The workers compensation lawyer succeeded in defending the facts of the injured worker’s search, meeting the good faith requirement to find equal work. This was so, proved the workers compensation lawyer, even as the workers compensation lawyer agreed…the employee had not always made weekly job searches. Sometimes, the workers compensation lawyer proved, the worker was just unable to physically work more than she did.

The workers compensation lawyer emphasized exactly how and when Texas workers comp rules define a “good faith” effort to get work. There were, for example, those basic issues of fairness, pointed out the workers compensation lawyer…most of all, the issue of recognizing the injured employee’s ability to work. The insurance company tried to prove (and couldn’t, because of the workers compensation lawyer) that the hearing officer was wrong in finding the injured worker had done “relatively equal” work. The big issues, according to the insurer, were (a) the lower weekly hours and (b) the fact that she didn’t (again: conceded by the workers compensation lawyer) search for work each week.

Workers Compensation Lawyer: An Injured Employee’s “Ability” To Work Is The Key

The workers compensation lawyer proved the insurer was emphasizing the wrong things. The correct focus, pointed out the workers compensation lawyer, was on the hours worked due to the ability to work, not on the wages paid. In this case, the hearing officer agreed with the workers compensation lawyer that the injured worker returned to work “within her restrictions.” That decision was supported by plenty of evidence by the workers compensation lawyer. The workers compensation lawyer pointed out that Texas law doesn’t mean an injured worker must work in a relatively equal position during each and every week, to prove good faith. The disability is the focus, emphasized the workers compensation lawyer. This is also why an injured worker needs to speak with a workers compensation lawyer as soon as possible, to be sure these technical rules about “good faith” are followed.

In this case, the injured worker had returned to work in a job relatively equal to her ability to work, the workers compensation lawyer had shown. She wasn’t also required to conduct a job search, in order to satisfy the good faith requirement. The hearing officer agreed with the workers compensation lawyer that the injured worker’s “underemployment was a direct result” of the impairment, caused by the workplace injury.

Texas Rules Allow Payments When Salary Decreased By Injury, Proved Workers Compensation Lawyer

Finally, the insurance company challenged what’s called the hearing officer’s direct result decision. Texas law, noted the workers compensation lawyer , says that “[a]n injured employee has earned less than 80% of the employee’s average weekly wage as a direct result…if the impairment (caused) the reduced earnings.” In this case, the workers compensation lawyer had also proved the lower wages, as a direct result of a serious workplace injury. The workers compensation lawyer proved the injured worker had severe physical limits. Because of these proven limits, she simply couldn’t do the job she had, at the time of her injury, the workers compensation lawyer emphasized. The workers compensation lawyer had made sure the worker’s award was upheld.

An injured worker can count on an experienced workers compensation lawyer to explain the requirements of a good faith job search. When an employer or their insurer suggests there hasn’t been a “good faith” job search, or a failure to earn more money, it’s absolutely urgent for a worker to be sure to understand their rights, and talk to a knowledgeable workers compensation lawyer.

Seeing a Texas comp lawyer is done with confidentiality and can lead to long-lasting improvements. In the following case, a worker had kept working for almost nine months after an injury…even though the medical treatment he’d been getting was later shown by the Texas comp lawyer not to be working for him. With the help of the Texas comp lawyer, the worker received the support he needed to change doctors, get better, and still safeguard all of his rights under Texas comp law.

The injured worker was employed as a carpenter. The injured worker, noted his Texas comp lawyer, was right-hand dominant, which made his injury to the right elbow even more important. The injury to his right elbow was eventually diagnosed as a right elbow fracture, proven by medical records obtained by the Texas comp lawyer.

The Texas comp lawyer argued (successfully) that the injured worker was entitled to a change in treating doctors. The Texas Workers Compensation Commission, the Texas comp lawyer emphasized, had even approved the change. It was the employer who tried to block the change, observed the Texas comp lawyer. The injured worker’s original treating doctor discharged him from care in June, 2009, after giving him a full release back to work. The injured worker never saw this doctor again, explained the Texas comp lawyer. In March 2010, after being laid off, the injured worker requested a change of treating doctor. He testified that because his pain “never went away, and I [had] lost confidence” in the first doctor.

The Texas comp lawyer emphasized that the legal standard used to approve a change in doctors, was whether there’d been an “abuse” of discretion in approving the change. In defining “abuse” of discretion, the Texas comp lawyer urged the Appeals Panel to see if the hearing officer acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles. In the present case, the Texas comp lawyer proved the reason for changing doctors was because the injured worker was not getting better. A change for this proven reason was allowable under Texas law, emphasized the Texas comp lawyer.

Employer’s Insurer Did Not Disprove Evidence From Texas Comp Lawyer

The Texas comp lawyer agreed that a change of doctor isn’t generally given, only by claiming a lack of improvement. Lack of improvement, the Texas comp lawyer said, can also be consistent with having reached maximum medical improvement. But the Texas comp lawyer showed in this case, by considering all the facts, that the insurer could not show the hearing officer abused his authority. Instead, the Texas comp lawyer proved that the hearing officer had strong evidence of non-improvement. The Texas comp lawyer had definitely detailed that the worker had a workplace disability, and had gradually lost his ability to work.

Employee Told To “Work Through” His Pain By Doctor, Showed Texas Comp Lawyer

The injured worker testified to the Texas comp lawyer that “I had constant pain in my elbow, all the time I was working.” The Texas comp lawyer also showed how the worker’s right elbow injury hindered his ability to do his job, especially over time. This evidence from the Texas comp lawyer was based (in part) on a supervisor, who repeatedly spoke to the worker regarding drops in production. Still, the Texas comp lawyer noted, the employee struggled to continue to work. The injured worker told the Texas comp lawyer this was why he’d “lost confidence” in his initial treating doctor. As importantly, and worrisome, the Texas comp lawyer showed, was how the worker “was told to just work through the pain” by that first doctor.

Things changed for the better, noted the Texas comp lawyer, with the new doctor. The injured worker’s new treating doctor found that the injured worker had a prominent spur in his right elbow, and diagnosed right elbow tenosynovitis. On May 15, 2010, evidence from the Texas comp lawyer noted the injured worker had a functional capacity evaluation, or FCE. The FCE was conclusive, the Texas comp lawyer pointed out, in revealing the injured worker could not perform heavy duty work or his regular duties as a carpenter. The comp award to the worker was upheld.

Testimony on disability isn’t limited to so-called “experts,” the Texas comp lawyer showed. Circumstantial evidence and the injured worker’s own testimony matter, the Texas comp lawyer emphasized. The hearing officer agreed that the Texas comp lawyer had met the burden of proof on the issue of disability and the need for a new doctor. When a worker is not getting better, it’s very possibly time to consult with an experienced Texas comp lawyer.

A worker facing recovery after an injury has a lot to consider. For the worker in the following case, determined to get completely well, getting the help of a workers compensation lawyer was invaluable. After months of slow recovery, the worker had a serious setback, and his workers compensation lawyer disproved the employer’s effort to say it was a new injury. The workers compensation lawyer convinced a hearing officer that the injured worker had suffered a covered neck injury at work. The employer’s insurer appealed, arguing that the injured worker didn’t prove he was disabled for the time after he completed what’s called a “work hardening” period. The workers compensation lawyer successfully argued the worker was credible and there was strong medical evidence of  a continuing, disabling injury.

The workers compensation lawyer had shown that the injured worker did suffer a comp covered neck injury. After spinal surgery, the workers compensation lawyer showed the worker came back to work (for about a month), though he still had pain. The workers compensation lawyer next proved how the employee was fired a few days after asking for time off. The workers compensation lawyer pressed the fact that the worker needed the time off, to attend a 4-week work hardening program, as part of his recovery, and (as the workers compensation lawyer noted) which had been prescribed by a doctor.

Worker Asked Workers Compensation Lawyer To Prove Right To “Take Enough Time For Health”

The employee testified to the workers compensation lawyer that he hadn’t worked after being fired, because “getting back to health was taking 100% of my time.” The injured worker also testified to the workers compensation lawyer that pain management treatment had been ordered, and he was “strictly” following that treatment, proved the workers compensation lawyer. Disability, the workers compensation lawyer noted, means having an “inability, because of a covered injury, to get and keep employment at wages equal to the pre-injury wage.” Whether disability existed in this case, the workers compensation lawyer observed, was established by the testimony of the injured worker, once the hearing officer said the employee was credible.

The workers compensation lawyer had also quoted the Texas Comp Act, saying the law doesn’t “burden” an injured employee with an absolute requirement to take on new employment, while still suffering some lingering effects of his injury. The requirement to find other work is supposed to be a “reasonable” burden, the workers compensation lawyer emphasized. A new job, the workers compensation lawyer correctly noted, must also be “compatible” with the injured worker’s experience and qualifications.

Employer Did Not Give “Bona Fide”OpportunityFor Employee, Workers Compensation Lawyer Showed

The workers compensation lawyer himself stressed that the worker knew Texas comp law “is not intended to be a shield for an employee to keep receiving temporary income benefits, if he’s capable of employment.” The workers compensation lawyer emphasized the phrase “if he was capable” in winning the argument. The workers compensation lawyer also noted the duty of an employer to be a fair player in the process, perhaps by giving reasonable opportunities such as light-duty work. Here, the workers compensation lawyer said, the employer simply fired the worker, apparently with no regard to his disability. At any rate, in this case, the workers compensation lawyer proved the worker’s credibility, when the injured worker answered the workers compensation lawyer: “I was completely unable to work after I was fired …strictly because of my severe neck pain and the treatments I absolutely had to have to get better.”

When it’s known that recovery is going to take time, a workers compensation lawyer helps guard the worker’s rights to that reasonable time. For a worker facing resistance from an employer, the sooner the better, when it comes to reviewing the progress (and problems) of getting better, with the help of a workers compensation lawyer.

A Texas workers compensation attorney won a case to show that worker comp benefits should not stop, based on a missed medical problem. In the following case, a Texas workers compensation attorney proved a missed diagnosis (a ligament tear) after a hand and finger injury. The Texas workers compensation attorney proved exactly why the first “certification” of what’s called the maximum medical improvement (or MMI) shouldn’t be final under Texas comp rules. The employer’s insurer appealed the Texas workers compensation attorney’s argument, trying to claim that the injured worker’s covered injury had “completely” healed. The Texas workers compensation attorney agreed about how the injured worker tried to return to work full time…but the employer was wrong (the Texas workers compensation attorney pointed out) to suggest the injured worker “must have had a new” accident. The Texas workers compensation attorney was to successfully prove that a misdiagnosis had happened.

The Texas workers compensation attorney had already won a stipulation from the insurer, agreeing that the injured worker suffered a crushing injury to the fifth finger (the little finger) of the left hand. The Texas workers compensation attorney demonstrated the accident, showing how the finger was mashed, while moving a heavy machine. The injured worker was seen in an emergency room, and began getting treatment from Dr. G for a fracture of the little finger. Eventually, the injured worker had two surgeries on the little finger, the Texas workers compensation attorney showed. Dr. G sent the injured worker back to fulltime work on October 18, and also certified MMI as October 18. The Texas workers compensation attorney was to prove definitely the need for more surgery, four months after that date. This meant, the Texas workers compensation attorney urged, that the October 18 MMI was based on a misdiagnosis.

In a doctor’s report, especially emphasized by the Texas workers compensation attorney, Dr. H wrote: The patient states he had no pain. He just complains of swelling and soreness sometimes. “I cannot grip anything. I do have weakness at my hand.” In the same tone, the Texas workers compensation attorney introduced progress notes from Dr. G, saying that the injured worker had “some joint stiffness.” Finally, in a crucial doctor’s note, obtained by the Texas workers compensation attorney, Dr. G also said that the injured worker “was at work lifting boxes during a moving assignment and felt pain in the left fifth digit with swelling…I suspect radial collateral ligament tear.”  This was the first connection of the finger injury to a ligament tear, the Texas workers compensation attorney had proven.

Texas Workers Compensation Attorney Proves “Misdiagnosis” Of Ligament Tear

An MRI done one month after Dr. G’s notes, said “atrophic and most likely post fracture changes in the proximal phalanx of the left fifth digit,” which the Texas workers compensation attorney showed meant a continuing medical problem. A radiologist who did the actual testing at that time was of the opinion that the diagnostic findings “are probably related to previous trauma.” The injured worker had additional surgery [again, after the October 18 MMI, emphasized the Texas workers compensation attorney] to repair collateral ligament tears of the left little finger. The Texas workers compensation attorney had successfully proven the covered injury had almost certainly then caused the ligament tear.

After Employer Fired Hurt Employee, Texas Workers Compensation Attorney Defended Worker’s Rights

On deciding the actual extent-of-injury, the hearing officer, in agreeing with the Texas workers compensation attorney, had said: “The medical evidence conflicted, but I find that after careful review of the medical evidence, based upon a reading of all reports, and the MRI’s… that the injured worker’s covered injury was a cause of the ligament tear to the fifth finger.”

The hearing officer found that the injured worker’s ligament tear had not yet been diagnosed when Dr. H assessed his “final” certification of MMI. The hearing officer found that was “a clear misdiagnosis and a previously undiagnosed condition.” The employer’s insurer had simply (and inaccurately, the Texas workers compensation attorney proved) claimed there was “no misdiagnosis.” The Appeals Panel agreed with the Texas workers compensation attorney, and said there was a previously undiagnosed condition—the torn ligament. Benefits for the worker were protected by the Texas workers compensation attorney.

Proving related injuries in this case even after many months is not necessarily uncommon, a Texas workers compensation attorney mentioned, since severe injuries often require several medical opinions. The focus of an experienced Texas workers compensation attorney is on the injured worker’s complete recovery. This helps explain why so many injured workers benefit from talking with a Texas workers compensation attorney.

After a workplace injury, a Texas comp lawyer will help define what has to happen for the worker, right away. It’s also important to be working with an experienced Texas comp lawyer, because so many injuries have lingering effects. One common need is to find out what “extent” the injury is going to take. A Texas comp lawyer will help explain the effects of one injury to other parts of the body, for example. In the following case, with just that kind of extent-of-injury problem, the Texas comp lawyer argued successfully to prove that an injured worker’s injury (amputating his left thumb) extended to include the cervical spine and left shoulder. The employer’s insurer appealed the Texas comp lawyer’s winning arguments, claiming there was no evidence of any causal tie-in, or links.

The Texas comp lawyer had convinced the hearing officer precisely how the injury did extend from the worker’s left hand, to both the cervical spine and a left shoulder injury. The injured worker, a custom cabinet maker, testified how he jerked his left arm as “I felt the sensation of cutting something other than wood.” He was immediately treated in the emergency room for his amputated thumb, and later told the Texas comp lawyer, whether recorded or not by doctors, he described his left forearm pain to people giving him follow-up care. While there was some conflicting medical evidence, there was more evidence (all convincingly highlighted by the Texas comp lawyer) of how after a couple of months, there was treatment for the employee’s ever-increasing arm pain, said the Texas comp lawyer.

Texas Comp Lawyer Emphasized Two Month Effort To Work, Ended Because Of Pain

The injured worker answered questions from the Texas comp lawyer, describing how “I went back to work for two months, but had to quit” in May, when he couldn’t “bear the pain.” Shoulder pain was noted in his medical records (introduced by the Texas comp lawyer), and pain injections were given, emphasized the Texas comp lawyer. In June, the worker had a cubital tunnel release, and more surgery in November, and the Texas comp lawyer explained how the worker had to have his arm in a sling for months. The worker stated, under specific questioning from the Texas comp lawyer, that he not had any other injury on the job, or after he left. The Texas comp lawyer also introduced prior medical reports, showing no pre-existing problems.

An opinion from the injured worker’s treating doctor, observed the Texas comp lawyer, fully backed a causal connection between the amputation and later problems. A doctor for the employer’s insurer blamed the injured worker’s problems on “degenerative” conditions. Yet, the injured worker’s boss had to admit to the Texas comp lawyer that when the employee returned to work, the ability to lift things up was obviously impaired, and the boss “was sure” that the injured worker’s arm “was sore.” Yet, the boss also claimed (this time with no evidence, the Texas comp lawyer emphasized) that the injured worker reported arm pain only after he tried to help unload a truck.

Effort Of Employee To Keep Working Was Defended By Texas Comp Lawyer

The Texas comp lawyer correctly pointed out that a timeline, alone, doesn’t show a causal connection between an accident and a later-diagnosed injury. But in this case, the Texas comp lawyer had shown a sequence of events, and also provided a strong, logically traceable connection between the event and the later injuries. The trauma was fully explained by the Texas comp lawyer’s evidence, and the Appeals Panel upheld the original comp award for the worker, as urged by the Texas comp lawyer.

Employers (as in this case, noted the Texas comp lawyer) may try to argue an injury has very limited results, and this tendency is a good reason to begin the process of applying for Texas workers compensation only with an experienced Texas comp lawyer. No matter where in the process of filing for benefits an injured worker finds him or her self, they can better deal with an employer’s actions, by having the help of an experienced Texas comp lawyer.

Deciding when to file a notice of injury is one of the first important decisions a worker can make, by consulting with a workers compensation lawyer, soon after an injury. In the same way, knowing if the employer or insurer have met or missed important duties of giving written “notice,” and reports, to the worker are another reason to work with an experienced workers compensation lawyer. In the following case, a workers compensation lawyer successfully pointed to when an employer had violated basic “notice” rights of an injured public librarian. First, however, a hearing officer actually ruled in favor of the employer/insurer and (at first) denied comp benefits. The workers compensation lawyer quickly appealed that ruling.

The workers compensation lawyer went on to successfully appeal the ruling. The workers compensation lawyer pointed out that it was undisputed that the employee had a serious back injury. The workers compensation lawyer zeroed in on the fact that a required Texas comp form (called the TWCC-21) wasn’t filed on time by the employer/insurer.

Worker Learned Real Cause Of Injury With Help Of Workers Compensation Lawyer

The workers compensation lawyer described how the injured worker had been a longtime administrative assistant at a large, Texas public library. The librarian testified to the workers compensation lawyer that on a Friday, while moving a crate containing books, she felt a “pop” in her back. She told the workers compensation lawyer that she continued to have back pain, through the following weekend, but due to family history, also believed the pain was caused by a kidney condition. The injured worker further testified to the workers compensation lawyer that only after getting results of her x-rays on August 10, did she realize the injury was work related.

The injured worker then told the workers compensation lawyer that she had reported the injury to her supervisor, Mr. L, on August 16. Evidence from the workers compensation lawyer showed she asked him “…if I needed to fill out a report?”. She said he told her to wait and “see what happens.” Mr. L testified that the first time he received notice was on September 28, though the workers compensation lawyer had strongly opposing evidence. The workers compensation lawyer showed how the worker’s neurosurgeon, Dr. K, believed her injury was “work-related, from lifting crates of books.” The workers compensation lawyer also had evidence of the employee being “well aware” of the “importance of accurately filing reports regarding work-related injuries,” since she was herself a supervisor. She testified, in answer to her workers compensation lawyer, that she had “completed such reports in the past for employees I had supervised.”

Workers Compensation Lawyer Challenged Lack Of Notice From Employer

Under Texas workers compensation laws, the workers compensation lawyer commented that the employer (who was self-insured) was required to notify both the Commission and the injured worker of a claim denial. Giving notice, the workers compensation lawyer observed, meant the employer/insurer had to do more than just say that it “had sent a form TWCC-21 out.” The insurer has to prove it sent the form.

Finally, the workers compensation lawyer stressed that the important notice form, the TWCC-21, did not have a date stamp, showing the date it had been (supposedly) received by anyone. There was “absolutely no evidence showing the TWCC-21 has been filed with the Commission at any time,” the workers compensation lawyer established. The Appeals Panel agreed with the workers compensation lawyer and reversed the hearing officer’s decision, as requested by the employee’s workers compensation lawyer. The hearing officer was ordered to make specific findings about both the adequacy and the timeliness of the employer/insurer’s TWCC-21.

There is every reason for an injured employee to get the help a workers compensation lawyer provides. The detailed rules about “notice” to and from employees, insurer and employer, a workers compensation lawyer proved, are to “help level the field” between an employer and the injured employee. The rules of timely notice are so crucial for all sides, that an injured worker should always consider meeting with an experienced workers compensation lawyer.

Employers frequently surprise an injured worker by contesting a workplace injury, according to an experienced workers comp lawyer. One common tactic by an employer’s insurer frequently occurs when the worker hasn’t yet chosen to get the help of a workers comp lawyer. In the following case, an injured worker had been a maintenance worker for many, many years with a self-insured employer, a large Texas school district. After he realized the employer was going to try to stop benefits, he then quickly got the help of a workers comp lawyer.

He later testified to his workers comp lawyer that “filling the weed eater with gasoline was a big part of my job.” He said that as he was holding up a gas can, pouring gas into the weed eater at work, he remembered that he coughed and felt “severe pain in my back and on my left side,” under his shoulder blade. Immediately, he fell to the ground. Several co-workers, also interviewed by the workers comp lawyer, witnessed the worker “having problems” while pouring the gas into the weed eater.

The injured worker was immediately taken to a hospital, according to treatment records from the workers comp lawyer. He was later seen by his treating doctor, who diagnosed the injured worker as having a thoracic strain, cervical strain, and left shoulder strain. The workers comp lawyer successfully argued at a hearing that the worker suffered an injury in the course and scope of his employment.

The employer tried (with no success) to “get around” the workers comp lawyer’s evidence. The employer suggested (but couldn’t possibly prove, observed the workers comp lawyer) that the injured worker had an “ordinary disease of life,” aging. The self-insured employer argued there was no connection between the work and the risk of the injury, because the injury was when the worker coughed…not while the injured worker was doing work. The evidence, however, from the workers comp lawyer clearly proved injury while the worker was holding up a gas can, and pouring gas into the weed eater. Again, the workers comp lawyer emphasized, this was part of his regular job duties.

Workers Comp Lawyer Pointed Out “Ifs And Maybes” Of Employer Argument Weren’t Facts

The workers comp lawyer noted that in many instances, an accident could occur either at work or away from work. This, the workers comp lawyer stressed, was also the core of the employer’s argument. But the mere fact that an accident could have happened at some other place doesn’t mean that an on-the-job injury becomes non-payable under Texas compensation rules, the workers comp lawyer said.

The Appeals Panel was also reluctant to reject convincing evidence, which the workers comp lawyer had already given to the hearing officer. Whether the injured worker was hurt at and because of work had been mostly a “fact question” for the hearing officer to decide. Texas law, the workers comp lawyer said, makes a hearing officer the most important judge of this evidence. In this case, the workers comp lawyer had already proven a strong connection between a very typical job duty, being performed at the very time of the injury. Any other injury had not been proven by the employer, observed the workers comp lawyer. The workers comp lawyer summed up by noting the employer was “merely speculating with ‘ifs’ and maybes.’ ”

Workers Comp Lawyer: “Disability” Meant Worker Simply Couldn’t Do His Former Job

The workers comp lawyer noted that Texas compensation law defines a “disability” as “an inability, because of a compensable [covered] injury, to obtain or keep employment, at wages equal to the pre-injury wage.” The workers comp lawyer pointed out there was only some conflicting evidence on disability. The hearing officer decided these conflicts by clearly explaining why the injured worker had a work-related disability, observed the workers comp lawyer. The hearing officer’s decision was especially, strongly worded to emphasize the injured worker’s own testimony to the workers comp lawyer, and detailed reports of the treating doctor, observed the workers comp lawyer. The workers comp lawyer’s evidence on the disability issue was enough for the hearing officer to accept it as conclusive.

By speaking with an experienced workers comp lawyer, as early as possible, an injured worker can have better control over the process. The often unpleasant surprise of an employer fighting a claim is much less likely to succeed when the worker, soon after an injury, has been to see an experienced workers comp lawyer.

As an experienced Texas comp lawyer has noted, “Slip and falls remain the most commonly ignored treatment problem in at-work accidents.” Many workers simply count on time to heal them, observed a Texas comp lawyer. So a recent report suggesting a need for more thorough treatments of aches and hurts (in addition to the back, for example) after a slip and fall, has come as “no surprise” to an experienced Texas comp lawyer. In the following case, the insurer tried to overcome evidence of injuries to a worker’s mouth and teeth, suffered from a severe fall.

The Texas comp lawyer showed a workplace fall had happened to hurt an employee’s neck and back, and it included serious injuries to the injured worker’s mouth and teeth. The employer’s insurance company disagreed, and expressed “the strongest” displeasure with the hearing officer’s “entire” decision. The hearing officer agreed the Texas comp lawyer had successfully shown how harm to the employee’s mouth and teeth was initially overlooked in a doctor’s attention only to the worker’s severe back sprain.

The insurance company appealed the Texas comp lawyer’s winning arguments, and argued the hearing officer was wrong to include any injury to the worker’s teeth and mouth. The Texas comp lawyer answered the insurer, correctly insisting that deciding the ‘extent’ of the injury had been a question of fact for the hearing officer to settle. The Texas comp lawyer also argued that the strongest evidence had come from the worker. A report submitted by the Texas comp lawyer from the dentist supported the worker’s testimony that a fractured tooth had resulted from the injury. The Texas comp lawyer emphasized the worker’s own opinion showed a reasonable cause and effect.

Texas Comp Lawyer Emphasized Worker Testimony Of Harm To Mouth And Teeth

The Texas comp lawyer had explained what’s called the “mechanism” of an injury. In showing damage to the mouth, the presence of blood in the injured worker’s mouth immediately after the fall was “significant,” emphasized the Texas comp lawyer. The Texas comp lawyer showed an onset of problems with the tooth, within a month after the fall. These factors led the hearing officer to agree with the Texas comp lawyer that the fracture of the tooth was a result of the same accident that caused the neck and head injury.

Medical, or expert, evidence isn’t always required to prove an injury, pointed out the Texas comp lawyer. “Expert” evidence should only be absolutely required in cases where common sense experience isn’t enough to understand the evidence, showed the Texas comp lawyer.

Texas Comp Lawyer Emphasized Medical Evidence Of “Traumatic” Symptoms

Ordinary trauma, the Texas comp lawyer noted, can often best be shown by testimony of the injured worker. It’s the worker who actually experienced, and is fully aware of the trauma, emphasized the Texas comp lawyer. The Texas comp lawyer had shown the evidence was more than enough to prove a “causal” connection—connecting the dots—between the injury and the injured worker’s problems with teeth and mouth. The Appeals Panel agreed with the Texas comp lawyer, and the insurer was ordered to pay the worker’s benefits immediately.

Some insurance companies, a Texas comp lawyer knows, worry over finding injuries that may seem to be non-obvious or secondary. These companies may want to save money, and fight even strong evidence from the injured worker. It’s vitally important, right after an accident, for a worker to consult with a Texas comp lawyer. The actual pain and suffering is often strong evidence of a ‘missed’ injury, such as to teeth or the mouth, noted the Texas comp lawyer. These “hidden injuries” may be obvious only to a worker, who quickly consults with an experienced Texas comp lawyer.