November 14, 2006 : Shawn C. Gooden Gains Favorable Workers' Compensation Decisions
Shawn C. Gooden, an associate in the Firm's Philadelphia office, recently obtained two favorable decisions in contested Claim Petitions.
In the matter before Judge Benischeck in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, the claimant was a manager for a retail clothing store who filed a Claim Petition alleging physical and mental injury that allegedly resulted from work-related conditions,among other bases. The claimant called a psychologist, a family practitioner and an orthopedic surgeon, while the employer relied upon an orthopedic surgeon and a psychiatrist.
The Judge denied the Claim Petition, concluding that the claimant did not sustain a cumulative trauma to her back. The Judge also found that the claimant’s back complaints were not related to a 2001 work injury. Finally, while the Judge did find that the claimant suffers from work-related anxiety and depression due to the stress of her job and long working hours and that the condition led to her disability, he concluded that the claimant failed to prove that the burdens placed upon her constituted abnormal working conditions.
Potential exposure in the case was significant, as the claimant earned nearly $900 per week and the case took over 3½ years from the date of injury to the decision to litigate. More importantly, a case such as this presents the potential for a whole new type of claim: The “Injury as a result of being overworked” claim. Recent case law from the Court states that pain, even without a more specific diagnosis, could be enough to prevail on a claim petition. The Judge declined to expand the Workers' Compensation Act to include subjective reactions to stressful working environments as compensable injuries.
In the matter before Judge Stapleton in Pottsville, the claimant was a truck driver who alleged that he sustained an injury due to constant repetitive forceful and “vibrative” motions associated with his job. During testimony before the WCJ, the claimant testified that he first noticed the condition on September 23, 2005, his last day of work, but the problem worsened on September 24, 2005. He testified that he began to notice the condition while driving his tractor-trailer and suggested that the force of turning the wheel while driving was the cause of his condition. The claimant provided the same history to his doctor who opined that the injury was work-related.
The defense relied heavily on an incident report that the claimant completed several days after the alleged injury. Therein, he indicated that the injury occurred on the night of September 24, 2005 and into the morning of September 25, 2005 while he was sleeping. the claimant also described going to an amusement park on September 24, 2005. Rather than depose a medical expert, the defense relied on existing medical records from the emergency room and the panel physician since there was no reference to a September 23, 2005 work injury in those preliminary records.
The Judge rejected the claimant’s testimony since it conflicted with his own statement on the incident report and the medical records. He also rejected the opinion of his expert since the expert relied on the inaccurate history provided to him by the claimant. Therefore, the judge concluded that the claimant did not suffer a work-related injury in the course of his employment and the Petition was denied and dismissed.
File Under: Results, Workers' Compensation, Shawn C. Gooden