قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The court refrains from questioning second-hand injury by disabled man

The court refrains from questioning second-hand injury by disabled man



The Supreme Court of Idaho on Thursday argued that the State Industrial Special Compensation Fund, which covers workers' compensation fees for workers disabled at a second workplace injury, failed to prove that a disabled worker was considered disabled before he reinjured his back and thus was responsible for covering the second injury.

Arturo Aguilar, who mainly worked as a manual worker in various industries and for different companies, injured his back in 2006 while lifting a jackhammer, which led to surgery two years later. In 2011, after working several jobs, he regained his back and was later considered disabled and could not work in any form, according to the documents of Arturo Aguilar v Idaho, Industrial Special Compensation Fund, filed in Boise.

In both cases, his employer decided on his claim. However, in the second injury he considered disabled, he filed a claim with the Industrial Specialty Compensation Fund, which was ultimately rejected by the State Employment Compensation Commission, which found that Mr. Aguilar "was" completely and permanently disabled by virtue of his low backward state alone. . . . "and" that Aguilar before and after injury limitations had not changed, effectively deciding Aguilar was completely and permanently disabled before its second injury, "record state.

The state Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Commission wrongly did not apply the correct legal the standard in determining whether Aguilar, who had worked between injuries, was disabled before the second injury, thereby releasing the fund from liability.

"Here the record shows that Aguilar met his initial burden because it was undisputed that he regularly worked for two careful jobs before their second injury, "the ruling states." As a result, any possible finding by the Commission that Aguilar was completely and permanently disabled before the second injury. "

The Commission also failed to apply the correct standard for the cause of the other damage the Court explained resulted in its decision to return the case back for further proceedings.

Officials with state funds and lawyers concerned could not immediately be reached for comments.

                    


Source link