Workers Comp Lawyer Showed Doctor’s Detailed Diagnosis Backed Worker’s Claim

Posted on January 7, 2012 by Ogletree Abbott

Insurer Did Not Have Evidence To Show Employee Had Any Ability To Work, Workers Comp Lawyer Proved

To win a comp case, an experienced workers comp lawyer successfully tells the story of what happened in an accident, and provides details as evidence. In some cases, the insurer may try to say that story (called a “narrative” under Texas comp law) doesn’t give enough evidence to prove a workplace injury happened. In the following case, the insurer failed twice in arguing against the injured employee’s workers comp lawyer.

First, a hearing officer agreed with the workers comp lawyer. The hearing officer specifically found the workers comp lawyer had given “a narrative that explains how the injury caused a total inability to work.” The workers comp lawyer had also shown the insurer had given “no other [medical] record showing an ability to work.” The employer appealed this workers comp lawyer ‘win’ for the employee.

Workers Comp Lawyer Used “Very Detailed” Medical Record To Defend Comp Claim

The workers comp lawyer relied on the detailed report from Dr. T. This doctor, observed the workers comp lawyer, had done an independent medical examination of the injured worker. This exam clearly met the requirements of Texas comp laws, because of the precise details in it, the workers comp lawyer was to show.

In that report Dr. T stated (in writing) to the workers comp lawyer:

“It would be my conclusion at this point that [injured worker] will not resume the type of employment that he has done previously. He had worked in construction and had done just basically completely manual labor his entire life, and I see no reasonable likelihood the he will ever return to that. I think it would be difficult for him to resume functional gainful employment on any full time basis.”

The workers comp lawyer had also faxed that report back to Dr. T, with another important question: “[d]oes this mean he cannot work at all at this time? Comments or clarification (if any).” In response to this second request from the workers comp lawyer, Dr. T told the workers comp lawyer (again in a hand written answer) that he did not “believe [injured worker] is able to work at this time, based on our visit and examination. I would consider him for sedentary work (1) if the right job were available and (2) he was retrained for such a position, this would be an eventual situation that does not exist at the present time.” The workers comp lawyer later introduced this written evidence as part of the narrative.

With the help of his workers comp lawyer, the injured employee next had a functional capacity evaluation (FCE). The FCE, showed the workers comp lawyer, concluded that “[d]ue to [injured worker’s] high level and pain and limitations, he would be unable to meet even sedentary category of work requirements.” All medical evidence had reached the same result, the workers comp lawyer emphasized.

Workers Comp Lawyer: Hand Written Medical Evidence Was Authentic

The insurer argued against accepting Dr. T’s written statements. The workers comp lawyer had asked for, and Dr. T had given, clarification of the first injury reports. The answers, emphasized the workers comp lawyer, “were in no way prohibited by Texas law or rules.” In addition, the workers comp lawyer proved the hand-written responses were properly considered as evidence by the hearing officer. It was up to the hearing officer to consider the significance (if any) of the fact that the notes from Dr. T were hand-written, the workers comp lawyer pointed out. The hearing officer was free to believe those statements based on the evidence of the circumstances from the worker and the workers comp lawyer. Especially, given the injured worker’s testimony that the workers comp lawyer had faxed the clarification request to Dr. T.

The Appeals Panel fully agreed with the workers comp lawyer and upheld the authenticity of Dr. T’s handwritten response. As suggested by the workers comp lawyer, the hearing officer was “well within her role as the fact finder” to believe the evidence offered by the workers comp lawyer. The workers comp lawyer had successfully defended the worker’s full award.

An experienced workers comp lawyer does much more than just introduce evidence. In building a “narrative,” the workers comp lawyer also explains the evidence and facts of the case. The sooner an injured worker talks with an experienced workers comp lawyer, the sooner, and the stronger, this process usually becomes. In this case, the injured worker also needed the help of an expert workers comp lawyer to prove the “authenticity of evidence,” and received the benefit of working with this experienced workers comp lawyer.

Posted in Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation | Tagged , | Comments Off

Workers Compensation Lawyer Stopped “Irrelevant” Employer Request For Old X-Ray

Posted on January 5, 2012 by Ogletree Abbott

After Employer And Insurer Disagreed On Appeal, Employee’s Workers Compensation Lawyer Protected Employee Award

Some insurers or employers may try to get irrelevant medical records from an injured worker, notes a workers compensation lawyer. For example, there can be cases where an injured worker can feel ‘blind sided’ by differences between what an employer’s insurance company and the employer think about a case. In the following case, meeting with a workers compensation lawyer helped defend an injured worker in the following case, from just such a disagreement. After an injured employee’s workers compensation lawyer wins a decision, the workers compensation lawyer can also expertly defend that award.

In this case, a workers compensation lawyer quickly defended the worker’s rights by filing for what’s called a “contested hearing.” The hearing process, when guided by an experienced workers compensation lawyer, helps an injured worker receive formal protections, and is one of the many benefits of hiring a workers compensation lawyer. The contested hearing was held and the hearing officer agreed with the workers compensation lawyer that the injured worker had an injury, covered by Texas comp law.

Workers Compensation Lawyer: Insurance Company Agreed To Liability

The employer’s insurance company accepted the decision won by the workers compensation lawyer, including a liability to pay, also shown by the workers compensation lawyer. However, the employer ‘parted company’ with their own insurance company, and appealed the decision on their own. The employer also disagreed with the workers compensation lawyer that the injured worker did have a covered injury.

On appeal, the workers compensation lawyer thoroughly reviewed the employer’s refusal to accept the hearing officer decision, even if the insurer had. Most importantly, the workers compensation lawyer emphasized the issues were really “factual” questions for the hearing officer. In fact, all but one of the matters raised by the employer involved fact issues, which had been answered in detail by the hearing officer. Under Texas comp law, the workers compensation lawyer noted, the hearing officer “was the sole judge of the weight and credibility of evidence.” The hearing officer decided what facts were to be taken as true, observed the workers compensation lawyer. The workers compensation lawyer argued successfully on appeal that the hearing officer’s decision was “well within the facts, and there was no new evidence from the employer.” This left the employer to try and disprove the established facts, stressed the workers compensation lawyer.

Workers Compensation Lawyer Protected Worker From Employer Misuse Of Medical Records

The employer made “a reference” on appeal, the workers compensation lawyer commented, to the hearing officer’s denying a request to issue what’s called a subpoena duces tecum, noted the workers compensation lawyer. But the workers compensation lawyer also showed, interestingly, that there was no evidence of any such request being made by the employer in the record. The workers compensation lawyer observed the subpoena was for the purpose of trying to get an old x-ray. While the employer argued the x-ray showed a prior fracture, the workers compensation lawyer had successfully shown the x-ray was irrelevant to the current injury. To the extent that the issue was appealed, the workers compensation lawyer proved that the evidence did show that the hearing officer “found no good cause to issue the subpoena” and had properly denied the employer’s request. The evidence from the workers compensation lawyer also showed that the employer didn’t fully raise the issue of the subpoena duces tecum at the hearing. Therefore, any possible error was waived by the employer on the appeal, showed the workers compensation lawyer. The Appeals Panel agreed with the workers compensation lawyer and upheld the complete comp award to the worker.

An experienced workers compensation lawyer will help advise an injured worker about how to deal with both an employer and the employer’s insurer. An experienced workers compensation lawyer can help the injured worker benefit from any differences of opinions and strategies. Finally, an injured worker can have these kinds of burdens lightened with the help of an experienced workers compensation lawyer.

Posted in Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation | Tagged , | Comments Off

Texas Comp Lawyer Showed Fight Between Co-Workers Caused “Workplace” Injury

Posted on January 3, 2012 by Ogletree Abbott

Proving Injury At Work Included Texas Comp Lawyer Proving Dispute Was “All About Work”

Though disagreements at work are not necessarily unusual, an actual fist fight at work is not very common. In the following case, one worker was injured, proved a Texas comp lawyer, after a co-worker criticized the way his work was being done. At first, the employer didn’t dispute a Texas comp lawyer request to pay for the worker’s compensation. Eventually, however, the employer later tried to change their view of the facts, and the Texas comp lawyer successfully took the dispute to a full hearing.

Texas comp law, noted the Texas comp lawyer, provides that an employer’s insurance company is liable if the injury comes from what’s called the “course and scope” of employment. Some injuries, listed by the Texas comp lawyer, are expressly not covered. These include an injury caused by an employee’s “willful attempt” to hurt himself or to “unlawfully injure” another person. Whether an injured worker was in the “course of employment” when he received an injury is a question of fact, emphasized the Texas comp lawyer.

Fight Was Related To Work-Based Argument,Texas Comp Lawyer Proved

The Texas comp lawyer introduced evidence of the injured worker and another employee having a disagreement about how to do the work. The Texas comp lawyer detailed how the fight began. The injured worker testified to the Texas comp lawyer that his co-worker was the aggressor. After hearing the evidence form the Texas comp lawyer, the hearing officer agreed with the Texas comp lawyer that the co-worker had attacked the injured worker. The issue, argued the Texas comp lawyer successfully, was purely about credibility. The Texas comp lawyer noted that it was “no surprise” that the employer’s “side of the case” had some evidence. That often happens, observed the Texas comp lawyer, in trying to decide when a fight can be safely avoided. But the hearing officer had the chance to look and listen to both sides of the story, emphasized the Texas comp lawyer. In this case, the hearing officer especially had the chance to listen to the worker, pointed out the Texas comp lawyer. The hearing officer agreed with the Texas comp lawyer and ordered comp payments. The employer appealed.

On appeal, the Texas comp lawyer again successfully defended the worker’s compensation claim. There was an important issue about the employer’s right to contest which worker may have stated the fight, agreed the Texas comp lawyer. In this case, the Texas comp lawyer noted there had been no “new” evidence from the employer… instead, the employer apparently only changed its mind about whether it thought it should pay benefits. The hearing officer, noted the Texas comp lawyer successfully, decided the employer was limited in offering any new defenses, so late in the process.

Texas Comp Lawyer: Conflicting Evidence Left Decision To Hearing Officer

The Texas comp lawyer built a strong argument using another Texas Workers comp appeals case. The other case involved a worker who had become intoxicated, observed the Texas comp lawyer. The employer in that other case had made a defense of employee misconduct, essentially agreeing that an injury had occurred, but saying the employer was not liable for employee “wrongdoing.” But even in that case, where the employer only added “misconduct” late in the process, the injured employee received benefits. In this case, the Texas comp lawyer noted there was really no evidence of any such misconduct by the employee. The Appeals panel also strongly agreed with the Texas comp lawyer and denied that the employer had any right to add a “new defense,” so late in the process, noted the Texas comp lawyer.

A comp case may begin with the employer seeming to agree with paying comp benefits, noted a Texas comp lawyer. In other cases, such as this one, the worker already wisely decided to get the help of a Texas comp lawyer, even if the employer seems to have been cooperative. In many cases, later developments mean it’s best to have been well prepared through early consultation with an experienced Texas comp lawyer.

Posted in Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation | Tagged , | Comments Off

Workers Comp Lawyer Showed Treatment For Other Injury “Masked” Carpal Tunnel

Posted on December 23, 2011 by Ogletree Abbott

Evidence From Workers Comp Lawyer Supported Secretary’s BCTS, Caused By Typing

A workers comp lawyer can help explain when an injury happens…and in cases of tunnel carpal or repeat stress trauma at work, this can be a very important fact. In the following case, a worker was to have surgery for a non-work related injury. In the process, her workers comp lawyer uncovered clues explaining her repeat stress injuries. In fact, she had been slowly injuring herself by her extensive keyboarding at work. The workers comp lawyer succeeded in showing where the woman’s two injuries overlapped, and where the bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (BCTS) was covered by Texas workers comp benefits. A hearing officer accepted the medical evidence from the workers comp lawyer as “conclusively” showing the BCTS from work. The employer’s insurance company appealed the workers comp lawyer evidence of BCTS.

On appeal, the workers comp lawyer also worked to show that the worker’s injury didn’t have an absolutely definite start date. This is very common in BCTS, noted the workers comp lawyer. The workers comp lawyer referred to expert testimony, showing that the worker’s work was “very consistent” with her repetitive trauma symptoms…and that this worker had a disability as a result.

The injured employee described to her workers comp lawyer the very repetitive nature of her job as an account service rep. It was undisputed, emphasized the workers comp lawyer, that the injured worker had developed BCTS, and at least one doctor related her condition to her work duties. The injured worker was being treated for another condition entirely (a neck injury), when the suspected BCTS was finally taken into account in evaluating the neck injury, observed the workers comp lawyer.

Help From Workers Comp Lawyer Helped Set Correct Time Frame Of BCTS Injury

The injured worker’s testimony to her workers comp lawyer, alongside the medical evidence provided, was strong evidence of BCTS. But the hearing officer had made one mistake, the workers comp lawyer argued, in that he “deemed” a specific date of injury for the BCTS. The record didn’t have any evidence from the insurer that the injured worker knew or should have known that she suffered from BCTS on a specific day, the workers comp lawyer went on to show.

At first, the injured worker told her workers comp lawyer that “I thought my hand pains came from my neck injury,” which had happened away from work. The workers comp lawyer showed she had surgery for the neck injury and had been getting physical therapy. But in having that condition treated, her doctor also discovered something else, showed the workers comp lawyer. A pre-surgery letter noted that the injured worker had pain down her right arm as well as the neck pain, emphasized the workers comp lawyer.

Certainty Of Carpal Tunnel Explained With Help Of Workers Comp Lawyer

The workers comp lawyer showed the worker didn’t actually know she had BCTS until she was examined by Dr. A for a second opinion. This second opinion was done at the employer’s request, emphasized the workers comp lawyer, to understand why she was still out of work. At that time, Dr. A told her she had BCTS, and that it was related to her typing activities at work. At that time, showed the workers comp lawyer, she had marked a box in her medical questionnaire that her condition might be work-related. But the hearing officer, emphasized the workers comp lawyer, had decided to say that the BCTS began when the injured worker was already out of work…out of work, added the workers comp lawyer, due to the combined injuries. When asked if anyone prior to this date had mentioned “repeat stress,” the workers comp lawyer showed that a physical therapist (treating the worker for her neck) “suggested” that she “might” have BCTS. The Appeals Panel agreed the workers comp lawyer had clearly provided enough evidence to show both (a) a work-related BCTS injury that was also (b) an occupational disease. The award, after changing the date of the injury (as requested by the workers comp lawyer), was fully upheld.

This case was an example of how repeat stress injuries have become very common, noted the workers comp lawyer. It also proved how important it is to get the help of a medical specialist and workers comp lawyer as soon as possible. In many cases, the worker may not even be aware of the role that a disease (such as tunnel carpal) is playing in another injury, proved the workers comp lawyer. One important clue, noted the workers comp lawyer, is the type of work being done. When a worker is uncertain about the cause (or in this case, even the exact date) of an injury, it’s urgent to get the help of an experienced workers comp lawyer.

Posted in Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation | Tagged , | Comments Off

Appeals Panel Agreed With Workers Compensation Attorney, Hearing Should Not Have Been Stopped

Posted on December 21, 2011 by Ogletree Abbott

Workers Compensation Attorney Appealed And Won Right To Fair, Full Hearing

The workers compensation attorney said it was clear that a hearing had actually been “stopped before it was properly completed.” The injured employee’s workers compensation attorney protested that the worker’s testimony was, in fact, never finished. Instead, the workers compensation attorney pointed out that the hearing officer seemed to indicate the case would be sent back to another benefit review conference (BRC). The workers compensation attorney appealed this process as being very unfair to the worker, who was ready to have the case decided.

On appeal, the workers compensation attorney emphasized the actual, recorded transcript of the hearing itself. The workers compensation attorney quoted the exact words of the hearing officer, who started the hearing by saying that she would decide the extent of the worker’s injury before acting on a request to depose the designated doctor. She indicated, said the workers compensation attorney, that it might “be appropriate to send a letter of clarification to the designated doctor.” As it turned out, this process of ending the hearing, the workers compensation attorney noted, was against Texas state comp laws.

Hearing Officer Interrupted Testimony, Noted Workers Compensation Attorney

As the injured worker began to answer his workers compensation attorney, the hearing officer interrupted to ask about the records from the first treating doctor. The workers compensation attorney then told the hearing officer that no such records were available, and the hearing officer soon learned that other records weren’t available. At that point, the hearing officer said:

We’re not going to continue with this hearing. I’m not going to leave the record open to wait for records so that I can determine extent of injury so that I can leave the record open again so that I can write to the designated doctor, if that’s necessary. I’m not going to maintain this file. These claims come ready to CCH. All records should be here for me to make a determination.

The hearing officer then made the following decision, emphasized the workers compensation attorney:

I’m sending you back to the [BRC]. We’ll get a copy of those records that the [Self-insured] has of the early medical treatment.

Workers Compensation Attorney: Ending Hearing, Refusing Decision Violated Worker’s Rights Of Due Process

The workers compensation attorney objected at that time, but the hearing officer did not change her ruling. On appeal, the workers compensation attorney convinced the Appeals Panel that it was wrong for the hearing officer to stop the proceeding, and also to send it back to a BRC. Texas comp law, the workers compensation attorney noted, gives a hearing officer “no authority” to “remand” a case to a BRC, especially once the hearing had actually started. In other words, the workers compensation attorney emphasized, the dispute could probably have been resolved at the hearing, based on the evidence there.

There were, the workers compensation attorney observed, no further proceedings that went on the record. Yet, again for some unknown reason, the hearing officer actually decided to write a decision in the case…“even though the hearing was incomplete,” showed the workers compensation attorney. The workers compensation attorney went on to note that Texas comp rules show a continuance to obtain records would have been a better (and legal) choice than ending the hearing and then issuing an opinion. The Appeals Panel agreed with the workers compensation attorney, and ordered a complete hearing, to “fairly resolve” the injury issues and to give the injured worker “his due process rights.”

Any employee who has been injured at work has a chance, and the right, to talk with a workers compensation attorney. As this case showed, the possibility of an appeal, to further guard the injured worker’s rights, can also be protected by working with an experienced workers compensation attorney.

Posted in Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation | Tagged , | Comments Off

Texas Comp Lawyer Defended Rights Of Staffing Service “Temp” Employee At Placement

Posted on December 13, 2011 by Ogletree Abbott

Temp Agency Had To Pay Workers Comp, Texas Comp Lawyer Proved

A Texas legislative study is moving towards improving worker protections for temp employees. Professor Mary Sullivan is an economist who believes these reforms can help workers get to a Texas comp lawyer sooner, getting better medical services in the process. The key to her proposal is to educate and encourage “Temp Workers” (who are injured at work) to meet with an experienced Texas comp lawyer immediately after an accident.

In the following case, a temp agency itself was the employer, and tried “aggressively” to not pay benefits to one of its employees, outsourced as a secretary. After a hearing, the officer agreed the Texas comp lawyer showed that the employer hadn’t made a real or ‘bona fide’ offer of employment (or a “BFOE”). If the employer had, the Texas comp lawyer noted, then the insurance company may have been entitled to lower the injured worker’s earnings payments.

The insurer appealed the Texas comp lawyer’s “win” for the temp employee, saying (incorrectly, the Texas comp lawyer was to prove) that the employer made both verbal and written BFOEs.

Texas Comp Lawyer Explained, Defended Comp Protections For Temp Employee

The injured worker was actually employed by a staffing service and assigned to a uniform company to perform general clerical duties, noted the Texas comp lawyer. The injured worker had a severe, compensable (i.e., covered) injury after she tripped on a rug and fell. The insurance company disputed the most serious aspect of the fall, said the Texas comp lawyer… a low back injury.

The injured worker first sought medical attention from Dr. D. The Texas comp lawyer showed that Dr. D treated the injured worker and released her to restricted duty. The injured worker tried to work at restricted duties, emphasized the Texas comp lawyer, on January 2; but on January 3, she left work after two hours, with right shoulder pain. The Texas comp lawyer then explained a series of extensive medical referrals. Dr. D referred her to Dr. E for treatment of her shoulder, and then Dr. N for cervical complaints.

Attached to one letter discovered by the Texas comp lawyer was an amended injury report from Dr. E, setting some restrictions for the injured worker’s shoulder injury. That report however, stressed the Texas comp lawyer, didn’t even mention the worker’s neck injury. The injured worker later testified to the Texas comp lawyer that she was “unable to go back to my job, the way it was before I got hurt.” While several of the doctors released the injured worker to light or modified duty with various restrictions, none released the injured worker to full duty, showed the Texas comp lawyer. Finally, Dr. N placed the injured worker in off-duty status, and later told the Texas comp lawyer “the worker was unable to work.”

Finally, the Texas comp lawyer showed that “even if” the employer “sincerely made an effort of a bona fide job offer,” the offer did not come close to meeting Texas legal requirements.

Texas Comp Lawyer Fairly Described Employer’s Offer As “Not Specific Enough”

The insurance company relied on what the Texas comp lawyer correctly showed as only a “verbal offer” of employment, once, in December. The offer of modified duty failed to comply with Texas rules, since the offer failed to include full details. The full rule, said the Texas comp lawyer, required:

(1) the job’s location; (2) the schedule; (3) the wages to be paid; (4) a description of the physical and time requirements; and (5) that the employer will only assign tasks consistent with the employee’s physical abilities, knowledge, and skill and will provide training if necessary.

The Texas comp lawyer stressed, finally, that “very clearly,” the employer’s offer did not include any part of the required phrase “will provide training if necessary.” The injured worker in this case may possibly have known, but forgotten or misunderstood, what the job actually involved, agreed the Texas comp lawyer…but, emphasized the Texas Comp lawyer, the Rules required that all of the information had to be in a real offer (BFOE). The Texas comp lawyer successfully argued that there were “no exceptions for failing to strictly comply with those requirements.”

Temp employees are among the many people who need the help of Texas comp lawyer. These employees often incorrectly feel they have no legal claims to discuss with a Texas comp lawyer. “Often because they feel they have no regular employer, they simply stop work because of an injury.” Professor Sullivan’s report proposed more public information, encouraging all injured employees—temp or permanent—to talk with a Texas comp lawyer.

Posted in Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation | Tagged , | Comments Off

Worker Injured In Two Auto Accidents Has Award Protected By Workers Comp Lawyer

Posted on December 9, 2011 by Ogletree Abbott

Workers Comp Lawyer : Employer’s Insurance Company Obliged To Cover Injury From First Work-Related Crash

The federal government estimates that the average American driver covers 15,000 miles a year. For people working in the auto sales industry, with even more highway miles, it is no wonder vehicle accidents are a leading cause of their visits to doctors…and a workers comp lawyer. In the following case, a car sales company tried to deny workers comp to its salesman.

One day, a previous customer contacted the salesman, saying that he was looking to purchase a new truck. At the specific direction and clear authorization of the salesman’s supervisor, the salesman (soon to become a statistical accident victim) took a truck home with him that evening. The plan, said the workers comp lawyer later, was to let the salesman “bring it by to the customer” the next morning. The injured worker did just that, observed the workers comp lawyer, but while returning to the lot office, after showing the truck to the customer, the salesman was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Fortunately, the workers comp lawyer proved, the accident was not the salesman’s fault. The salesman went to the hospital and was later taken off work. Unfortunately, noted the workers comp lawyer, the injured worker was thereafter involved in a second motor vehicle accident, less than a month later, going to a doctor’s appointment. The workers comp lawyer was to prove the first accident was the more severe of the two, and the car company wanted to refuse any payments for workers comp, based on the non-work second accident.

The hearing officer decided in favor of the injured employee, and relied on the workers comp lawyer’s strong evidence. The injured worker suffered a serious injury from the first accident, which kept him from work for a total of almost six months. The insurance company appealed their loss, arguing that the injured worker was not in the “course and scope” of his employment at the time his first injury occurred.

Workers Comp Lawyer Detailed Medical Impact Of First Vehicle Crash

It wasn’t disputed, noted the workers comp lawyer, that the injured worker was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the second motor vehicle accident. In its appeal, the insurer tried (without luck) to prove that the injured worker wasn’t in the course of his employment at the time of the first accident, either. Failing that, the insurance company also tried to say the workers comp lawyer didn’t carry a burden of proof to show the salesman had suffered any injuries as a result of his first accident.

The workers comp lawyer pointed out that Texas comp law defines “course and scope” of employment as an activity of any kind having to do with business being done by an employee. This usually means, pointed out the workers comp lawyer, benefiting the business of the employer. The workers comp lawyer noted this “benefit” could happen away from the car lot, too. The general rule in Texas, noted the workers comp lawyer, is that an injury occurring in the use of the public streets or highways, in going to and returning from the place of employment, is non-compensable. But there was also an important exception to the general rule, showed the workers comp lawyer. If (as in this case) the salesman was “directed” to go from one place to another, then the accident would be an exception and allowed coverage under Workers Comp. This exception, said the workers comp lawyer, was called being on “a special mission.”

Workers Comp Lawyer Showed Injured Worker Was “Acting For Employer”

The workers comp lawyer pointed to similar cases, where evidence supported a decision that the injured worker had been acting at the employer’s direction. This was exactly true in this case, explained the workers comp lawyer, since the salesman was in fact on a special sales mission at the time of the accident. As the workers comp lawyer noted, the injured worker was not just returning to work, but was also returning the truck to the employer as well. Finally, the workers comp lawyer emphasized that there was “no evidence that the injured worker had deviated” or changed from his “special mission” at the time of the accident. The workers comp lawyer established through testimony and estimated mileage that the salesman worked only as he had been directed.

The insurer tried arguing (unsuccessfully, it turned out) that the worker’s injuries were only related to the second, non-work-related accident. But the workers comp lawyer noted that whether an injured worker’s medical problems reflect the continuing result of a compensable injury, or were solely caused by a later event is a question of fact for the hearing officer to have decided. All of the medical evidence in this case came from the salesman’s workers comp lawyer, and showed a continuing effect from the first accident. The salesman’s award and benefits had been protected by the workers comp lawyer.

It is not always easy to gauge how an employer will react to an accident at work. Some employees believe that they should “wait and see” about talking with a workers comp lawyer in such a case. The reality is that an early meeting with a workers comp lawyer is not only confidential, but also helps protect the rights of all parties. In this case, there was every advantage for the salesman to have initially gotten the help of a workers comp lawyer.

Posted in Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation | Tagged , | Comments Off

Workers Compensation Attorney Showed Waitress’s Back Injury Major Reason For Disability

Posted on December 7, 2011 by Ogletree Abbott

Waitress’s Fall Injury Proven By Workers Compensation Attorney

Labor safety reports note that restaurant workers are especially likely to suffer two types of serious injuries at work: falls and lifting accidents. In the following case, a waitress received crucial help from a workers compensation attorney twice, for two accidents over a two year period at the same restaurant. After the second accident, the waitress also relied on her workers compensation attorney to show the employer had not offered continuing light duty or pay.

At a formal hearing, the workers compensation attorney succeeded in getting the employer to agree to two important facts. First, that the injured worker did have what’s called a “compensable” (or covered) injury. Second, that the employer didn’t make a bona fide or real offer of employment after the waitress’s second injury. Yet, even with these important agreements won by the workers compensation attorney, the insurance company fought whether the injured worker had been disabled by the second injury. The workers compensation attorney had the injured worker describe her working conditions as a waitress. The injured worker testified that she slipped and fell at work, hurting her back and left knee. The workers compensation attorney introduced evidence of her seeking immediate medical treatment, taking the waitress off work. Under further questioning, the worker told of a previous injury to her back (two years before) while working for the same employer, noted the workers compensation attorney.

The injured worker answered a question from her workers compensation attorney that after that first injury, she kept working for the employer, but in light-duty. However, after the second fall, the injured worker was taken off work by her treating doctor (Dr. S). Dr. S, at that time, recommended the worker attend a “work hardening” program for her back, proved the workers compensation attorney. The worker started, but didn’t finish the program, the workers compensation attorney noted, “for good reason.”

“Work Hardening Program” Was Too Painful, Proved Workers Compensation Attorney

The injured worker testified, in answering her workers compensation attorney, that she was unable to complete a six-week work hardening program because of “severe back pain.” The injured worker also told her workers compensation attorney that she didn’t receive wages from her employer, or benefits from the insurer, during the work hardening program. The injured worker testified that she “needed to change” treating doctors from Dr. S to Dr. Q. Dr. Q eventually released her to light duty work, two months after the second injury, but the employer hadn’t offered her any hours. This unrefuted fact, noted the workers compensation attorney, was why the insurance company stipulated that the employer hadn’t made a genuine offer of light duty employment to the injured worker. As a result, the injured worker, in direct responses to her workers compensation attorney, said “I have not worked since my last fall.”

Workers Compensation Attorney Discussed Rules On Having “Concurrent Disability”

The evidence introduced by the workers compensation attorney was enough, the Appeals Panel agreed, for the hearing officer to find the injured worker was disabled by the second fall. Texas comp rules, noted the workers compensation attorney, define disability as “the inability because of a compensable injury to obtain and retain employment at wages at the pre-injury wage.” In this case, the workers compensation attorney showed medical evidence of the fall and the employer’s refusal to pay a pre-injury wage (through offering light duty). The hearing officer was especially persuaded by the injured worker’s own “credible” testimony, observed the workers compensation attorney.

The workers compensation attorney had shown (and the hearing officer agreed) the injured worker “may have” a concurrent disability because of her prior injury. Yet, the Appeals Panel also agreed with the workers compensation attorney that “the [second] back injury is the producing cause of her present disability, according to her testimony and the most credible medical evidence presented.” The decision of the hearing officer was affirmed and full benefits were awarded to the worker.

Many injured workers may be eligible for additional assistance or medical care to help them return to work. A workers compensation attorney is often essential in this complicated process, explaining what programs and rights the worker is entitled to under Texas comp law. In cases involving a worker already on light duty, it’s absolutely essential for the worker to be aware of their rights in the event of a second injury. Some employers may try to discourage these efforts, making even more important the help of a workers compensation attorney.

Posted in Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation | Tagged , | Comments Off

Texas Comp Lawyer Showed Insurer Needed To Pay For Spinal Surgery As Part Of MMI Deadline

Posted on December 5, 2011 by Ogletree Abbott

Texas Comp Lawyer Defended “Fair” Result In Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI)

An employee was injured at work, and missed just a few days of work at that point. Two months later, however, the injured worker again missed work due to his injury. Only then did workers’ compensation benefits begin to accrue on an eighth day of disability. These dates were to become crucially important, due to the deadlines associated with Texas comp rules for “maximum medical improvement.” At this time, the worker had not (yet) gone to a Texas comp lawyer. The case also became a study of how important an experienced Texas comp lawyer is to calculate deadlines.

As later explained by a Texas comp lawyer, the injured worker eventually had spinal surgery, and wasn’t able to return to work by the time of the hearing. At the hearing, the insurer argued the worker had failed to follow the notice requirements for MMI deadlines. The Texas comp lawyer detailed the miscalculation of the “earliest” MMI date, which was to be crucially important.

Texas comp laws define MMI deadlines in several ways, which a Texas comp lawyer knows well: “[MMI] means the earlier of: (A) the earliest date after which, based on reasonable medical probability, further material recovery from or lasting improvement to an injury can no longer reasonably be anticipated; (B) the expiration of 104 weeks from the date on which income benefits begin to accrue; or(C) the date decided under ( some other) applicable rule.”

Texas Comp Lawyer: Surgery Involved Proof Of Maximum Medical Improvement

The problem in this case was because the injured worker was to have his spinal surgery scheduled so close to the day of his ‘statutory’ MMI deadline. The injured worker was advised (again, before he had gone to a Texas comp lawyer) that he could request an extension of the date of MMI, due to the surgery. That much was true, noted the Texas comp lawyer, but the dates had been miscounted. The urgency to get an extension came from the “Dispute Resolution Information System” notes (which the hearing officer takes official notice of) that wrongly calculated the injured worker as hitting an MMI deadline on October 25. Based on that error, the case went ahead, and comp system staff accepted an extension request. All sides at that time (the worker still at that time with no Texas Comp lawyer) still apparently believed the request had been properly submitted, in a time frame set by comp rules… no earlier than 12 weeks before the expiration of the 104 weeks

Texas Comp Lawyer Will Know Correct MMI Deadline Dates

In November, a Texas Comp Commission letter told the worker that anyone wanting to dispute the requested extension could request a benefit review conference “within 10 days after receiving the extension order.” There was no such request sent back by the worker, since the worker was still at that time not working with a Texas comp lawyer. The injured worker realized later that a mistake had been made in calculating the 104-week period from his date of injury… instead of from the date when his benefits really began to accrue. He finally sought help from a Texas comp lawyer. The Texas comp lawyer notified the Commission and helped work out the errors in MMI deadlines. The Commission finally agreed with the Texas comp lawyer and corrected the statutory MMI date to be April 28. The insurer, however, appealed and essentially tried to force the wrong date to be used, so as to keep from paying for the spinal surgery, “unfairly and unlawfully” observed theTexas comp lawyer.

The insurer tried (unsuccessfully) to argue that because in November the injured worker was given 10 days to dispute that date, “and he didn’t do so,” that the early (and incorrect) MMI deadline had to be used. As the Texas comp lawyer noted, there were errors made in the early handling of the case. Yet the worker had been actually incorrectly required to ask for an extension of MMI, pointed out the Texas comp lawyer. It had even been unnecessary to have the date extended to allow for surgery, emphasized the Texas comp lawyer. The proper deadline should have been in April, and not October, proved the Texas comp lawyer. The injured worker’s situation (especially if acting without a Texas comp lawyer) wasn’t rare, the Appeals Panel said, in agreeing with the Texas comp lawyer. A simple mistake was made in the MMI deadline date because the benefits in this case didn’t begin right after his injury. It would have been wrong, the Texas Comp lawyer succeeded in arguing, to allow the insurer to use the incorrect MMI October deadline, earlier than the law’s correct April date. The workers award was upheld, and the surgery and related post-op therapy paid for by the insurer.

There are many benefits to having an experienced Texas Comp lawyer. This case also showed that the details and deadlines of Texas comp law are best understood by a Texas Comp lawyer…and that deadlines and delays in getting that help can have serious results. The insurer even tried to “trip up” the worker by invoking a date that was not even valid. The case also showed that an injured worker wisely seeks advice as soon as possible to avoid or correct mistakes…mistakes best solved by meeting early with a Texas comp lawyer.

Posted in Deadlines, Workers' Compensation | Tagged , | Comments Off

Comp Lawyer Showed Connection Between Worker’s Glass Cut And Later RSD In Hands

Posted on November 30, 2011 by Ogletree Abbott

Restaurant Workers Group Encourages “Early Meeting” With A Comp Lawyer

In an annual review of worker injuries to its members, an independent restaurant employees work safety group concluded that a Texas comp lawyer deserves special credit. In many cases involving restaurant worker injuries, the workers are subject to especially painful infections. In the following case, a seemingly modest cut to a thumb developed into a severe disorder over the course of almost a year. The efforts of a comp lawyer helped guarantee adequate care for the worker, when the insurer tried to avoid payments.

While working as a dishwasher in a cafeteria, the injured worker cut his right thumb on some glass in a tub of dishes. The comp lawyer introduced records that the wound was first treated by “Dr. L.” Within a week, the comp lawyer also proved multiple abscesses had appeared at the end of the thumb. These were drained and treated with antibiotics. The worker still had increasing right hand pain, noted the comp lawyer, accompanied by an inability to complete a grasp with that hand. At the end of that same year, he was diagnosed with reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), mostly in the right hand, noted the comp lawyer, but also with some involvement to his left hand. Finally, the comp lawyer offered evidence to show severe swelling “with fluctuants” on the back of the hand, which eventually required draining in an operating room. The insurer, in declining payment, said the original thumb cut had nothing to do with the whole hand injury.

The hearing officer settled this issue by agreeing with the comp lawyer, saying that the worker’s thumb injury did include an injury to the entire right hand, and some of the left, in addition to the right thumb. The employer’s insurance company appealed, saying there was not enough evidence to prove the comp lawyer’s case.

Comp Lawyer Showed RSD Evidence Based On Treating Physician’s Records

Dr. K, the insurance company’s required medical examination (RME) doctor, gave the injured worker an impairment rating of 11% based on injury to a thumb, osteoarthrosis, and joint pain. In his report, Dr. K set out his findings upon clinical examination of the hands and stated the diagnosis as RSD of the right hand with some involvement of the left hand. Dr. L differed, emphasized the comp lawyer, saying that “in all probability this [swelling and fluctuance] may be related to his initial Workmen’s Compensation injury.”

The insurance company introduced a report from their Dr. J to dispute the comp lawyer’s evidence of the necessity of the injured worker’s treatments. Dr. J discussed at some length the injured worker’s drug addiction and imprisonment, but had to concede to the comp lawyer that it was “improbable… but not impossible” that the injured worker could still have pain from a healed thumb laceration after a long period of time. The same exchange between the comp lawyer and Dr. J showed it was certainly possible that the accident or even later treatment could have resulted in cellulitis or an abscess on the back of the right hand. Dr. J’s report (again, noted the comp lawyer, based on a paper review of the medical records and not the patient) said it was “improbable” that the injured worker’s thumb laceration with the infection could result in swelling in the hand. The comp lawyer proved this ongoing pain could have been due to both the sensitive anatomy of the hand and to the long time since the accident.

Insurance Company Had No “Sole Cause” Proof To Disprove Comp Lawyer Case

The comp lawyer agreed that the injured worker had the burden to prove his compensable injury included injury to his right hand in addition to his thumb. The comp lawyer satisfied the Appeals Panel that expert medical evidence, especially from Dr. L’s reports, together with the report of Dr. K, did support a finding for the worker. The insurance company’s evidence vaguely alluded “to other possible causes, including drug addiction and an intervening auto accident.” But the comp lawyer stressed that the insurance company didn’t attempt to prove that any other events were the sole cause of the injured hand injury. The comp lawyer had successfully defended the restaurant employee’s full rights to benefits and treatment.

The restaurant employee’s safety group has a policy of recommending “immediate” consultation with a comp lawyer after any serious injury. The group noted that many injuries are made worse, by “understandable reluctance to seek treatment.” This case, the group also note, was a “classic instance where what seemed not to be a ‘serious’ cut was eventually tremendously dangerous.” By quickly seeking qualified medical assistance, more could be done to prevent such outcomes. Following that medical care, needed attention also includes a consultation with a comp lawyer.

 

Posted in Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation | Tagged , | Comments Off