ILNews

Workers' comp cases question line between employer liability and employee responsibility

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

In June, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the finding of a workers’ compensation judge who ruled that a man whose wife died of a pulmonary embolism while working from home was entitled to workers’ compensation survivor benefits. In Renner v. AT&T, No. A-2393-10T3, a doctor admitted that other factors – including obesity – may have been risk factors for developing the fatal blood clot. But the court ultimately agreed that working long hours is what caused her to develop the condition.

hamilton-linda Hamilton

Cases like this bring to light questions about where an employer’s liability ends and an employee’s responsibility begins. Nationwide, obesity rates continue to climb, and with evidence to support that obese workers are more likely to be injured on the job – and may take longer to recover than non-obese people – the question of liability may come up more often in courtrooms.

Flexible precedent

In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by the state’s Worker’s Compensation Board requiring an employer to pay for an injured employee’s weight-loss surgery. In the case of PSC LLC d/b/a Boston’s Gourmet Pizza v. Adam Childers, No. 93A02-0902-EX-176, the appeals court affirmed the board’s decision that the employer was liable for Adam Childers’ lap-band weight-reduction surgery, as Childers’ surgeon said that without the operation, back surgery could be unsuccessful.

Ty Craver, an attorney who handles workers’ compensation defense for the Indianapolis firm Hill Fulwider McDowell Funk & Matthews, remembers the case well.

“That case got a lot of play nationally – Indiana

work comp doesn’t usually get national attention,” he said. “The concern was it was going to promote a chilling effect” about who employers might hire, possibly leading to employers preferring to not hire overweight workers.

Ft. Wayne attorney Linda Hamilton, chair of the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board, said that all workers’ compensation claims are considered on a case-by-case basis. Because Childers’ employer was held to be liable for his weight-loss surgery doesn’t mean all employers will find the same rules apply in their distinct situations, she said.

Craver said he thinks the compensation board has done an excellent job in not “drawing a bright line” that determines how they will rule on a particular case.

“It’s tough to know where that line is,” he said. I’ve had cases where you have a very compensable injury and you have someone that’s overweight and they have to continue to be on TTD (temporary total disability) for a longer time.”

Judy Pippin of Carmel firm Wagner Reese & Crossen said, “Obviously you hired this person – it would be really unfair and unfortunate to try to hold something against them that you knew when you hired them. You have to provide medical treatment for the work injury, and if things are complicated because of the employee’s own body, you have to accept that and go forward,” she said.

More injuries, more time

Duke University researchers in 2007 reported that obese workers, compared to non-obese workers, filed twice the number of workers’ compensation claims, had seven times higher medical costs from those claims, and lost 13 times more days of work from work-related injury and illness. The results of the study were published in the April 23, 2007, edition of Archives of Internal Medicine.

In the past 20 years, obesity in the United States has increased dramatically. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2000, only 22 states had a prevalence of obesity of more than 20 percent. By 2010, no state had a prevalence of obesity less than 20 percent, and Indiana’s obesity rate was between 25 and 29 percent. Those statistics would seem to suggest that the nation’s workforce is becoming more obese, and that as a result more workplace injuries are occurring. But if that’s happening, attorneys aren’t seeing complicated employer liability issues playing out in court – at least not yet.

Craver said in the 13 years he has practiced law, he’s seen only a handful of cases in which obesity played a role in workers’ compensation.

“I don’t see it that often, but when you start reading the newspaper, and on the daily news you start seeing … how our obesity rated, it’s one of those problems where I think we’ll be seeing more of it,” he said of workers’ compensation cases that end up in court.

Striving for a healthier workforce

“Many forward-thinking employers provide incentives for their employees to be healthy by offering weight loss programs and/or bonuses for participation in exercise programs,” Hamilton said.

Pippin said she thinks employers may be taking more preventative steps in dealing with obesity, rather than letting issues play out in court.

“In workers’ comp, it’s sort of like the employer takes the employee as they find them. And I think now a lot of employers are initiating healthy living,” she said. “I know a lot of places are giving discounts on health insurance – if your blood pressure, that kind of thing – are in good shape.”

Craver agrees that one of the best steps an employer can take to head off problems related to obesity is to think about the health of its workforce.

“The employers should try to be as proactive as they can, and I think one of those things is wellness programs and incentives for employees to have wellness on their own,” Craver said. In his own firm, management is planning for a comprehensive employee wellness program.

“We’re looking at it as ways to reduce insurance premiums – and there’s that good intangible benefit of them being healthier,” Craver added.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT