Sometimes? The lines get blurred: recent cases from Illinois, North Carolina, Arkansas & New Mexico
Newspaper reportage has led to the announcement of an Illinois state probe into possible workers’ comp fraud at the Menard Correctional Center, where nearly 400 guards and workers–including the warden–have filed claims totaling nearly $10 million in three years. As discussed in a previous post, Illinois is in the middle of a workers’ comp debate, with one side denouncing proposed losses for injured workers while the other side claims the high cost of workers’ comp premiums deters new business from locating in the state.
According to a Dec. 30 story at the Belleville News-Democrat’s Web site, the chairman of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission told the paper that he was “surprised that with all the different agencies that are involved, that it’s taken you guys [i.e., the newspaper] to bring this to my attention. My eyes are wide open. … It’s hard for me to imagine it’s all kosher.”
According to the article, “More than 500 claims, including a $75,678 payment to the prison’s warden in June, have been filed since Jan. 1, 2008. Approximately 290 cases are pending. More than 230 prison workers contend they were injured not because of an accident but through repetitive trauma caused over years mainly by operating manual cell locking mechanisms. Carpal tunnel syndrome can result from repetitive trauma.
“After learning the results of a News-Democrat investigation that revealed these figures, Mitch Weisz, chairman of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, said Wednesday he has called for an official investigation of the Menard claims by the state’s Department of Insurance and has contacted the agency’s Director Michael McRaith.”
We’ve discussed before the degree of differences among state rules and regulations governing workers’ comp coverage, noting that in some states workers are covered while traveling to and from work although other states are more restrictive. This is but one reason to consider hiring a trained, experienced attorney for complex, adversarial injury cases.
Today we have plenty of examples that illustrate such differences.
In North Carolina, an ex-Marine who became a public school principal known for visible, anti-gang efforts was injured by a shotgun blast to the face on the way to work at Robeson County’s Fairmount Middle School. According to this Dec. 30 story, former principal James Hunt was subsequently awarded workers’ comp payments for the shooting injuries by the state Industrial Commission.
So…does the school district hold a rally to commission a statue of Hunt?
Nope.
Here’s the lede: “Robeson County Schools has appealed a state commission’s ruling that a principal who was shot last year on his way to school deserves workers’ compensation for his injuries.”
Here’s the finale: “School district lawyers maintain that taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay compensation because the shooting happened while Hunt was away from school property.”
Makes you wonder what the district will do if a coach or athlete gets hurt in an away game.
Now, in Arkansas, the state Supreme Court had to get involved in the case of a worker who got tired waiting in line with everybody else who simply wanted their paychecks. She decided to smoke outside while the line thinned out and apparently got hurt in a fall on her way back to the paycheck line.
The original workers’ comp panel ruled the injury compensable–after all, she was on break–but the medical provider appealed.
From the Dec. 13 piece at Insurance Journal: “The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission originally found for Woods, deciding that her injury was compensable. But Jonesboro Care & Rehab Center appealed, maintaining that she was not performing employment services when she sustained the injury. Instead the Center asserted ‘that at the time of her injury, appellee was taking a personal break that did not directly or indirectly advance her employer’s interest,’ the Court explained. The appeals court sided with the Center.
“The [Supreme] Court ruled Woods was doing work at the time of her injury — by remaining on site until she could pick up her paycheck, as required by her employer. It vacated the decision of the appeals court and affirmed the ruling of the Workers’ Compensation Commission.”
Our last case of the day involves alcohol consumption, and, curiously, the ruling hinges on performance criteria rather than the rules ‘n regs of what legally constitutes “being drunk.”
Merely judging from the Dec. 29 Insurance Journal story, it seems as though the Las Cruces, NM, trash-truck worker may have been drinking either before-shift or during. At some point, in what sounds like a fairly intricate maneuver to extract “a trash bin that was stuck in the truck hopper,” Edward Villa:
. . . reached for the chain, he lost his balance, fell and seriously injured himself.
The city argued that on the day of the accident, Villa’s blood-alcohol level was 0.12, over the New Mexico legal driving limit. However, in assessing Villa’s intoxication for the purpose of recovery benefits, the workers’ compensation judge noted that although Villa was intoxicated, his co-worker and supervisor did not notice a problem with Villa’s behavior.
“[T]he fact that workers was inebriated … does not resolve the legal effect of it on his claim for benefits,” the WCJ concluded. Thus, the judge issued a 10 percent penalty for being intoxicated, and said the state had to award the remaining 90 percent of workers’ comp benefits.
Bottom line, I guess, Villa was not driving. So how or why would driving rules apply?
Then there’s the problem with co-workers’ testimony about Villa’s behavior.
From getting shot in the face, to falling off a garbage truck…strange world.
***********************************************************************************************************************
Frequently enough, a worker’s compensation case may be so complex as to demand legal representation. However, sometimes what seems like a cut-and-dried situation to an injured worker may result in a smaller award than envisioned–or even a denial. Have you, a friend or a loved one been injured on the job? Whether you’re merely seeking answers about your rights or believe a lawsuit may be necessary, be sure to seek counsel with attorneys trained and experienced in workers’ compensation. Here’s some resources:


