قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The court rejects the business cleaner's back injury to causation

The court rejects the business cleaner's back injury to causation



An appeal court in Louisiana on Tuesday dismissed the employee's compensation claim filed by a cleaner at an aircraft propeller store who had previous back problems and was diagnosed with degenerative problems before injuring himself at work in what a work compensation referee called a "minor injury" that occurred two years before leaving a claim.

About two months after she finished due to a decrease in the workforce of Kelps & Will Prop Shop LLC in Houma, Louisiana, in 2016, Dawn Guy left a worker claiming an injury she claimed to have suffered in 2014 while he lifted a bin according to the documents of Dawn Guy v. Kelps & Will Prop Shop filed in the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit in Baton Rouge.

Ms. Guy later informed the bookkeeper about her injury and testified that she was told to "go to the doctor and that the company would replace her for the visit", registering the state and adding that the bookkeeper later told her that she did not know Mrs Guy's injury until the doctor visited when Guy asked for compensation.

Records show that she was treated the same day for her alleged injury, when she said she was approaching the accounts, but testified that he was hurting "actually occurred about a week before that date." Her medical records revealed that she was only complaining about pain in the middle of her back at that time, without any complaints about her low back, right hip or groin area. Her medical records also reveal that she had previously seen the same doctor earlier in 201

4, and complained about low back pain, including, record status.

Other doctors treated Mrs. Guy for later visits in early 2015, where she made no complaints about back or hip pain, registration status. But later this year she went to another doctor with "a lot of complaints, including hip pain".

"There was no note in the journal of how long she had had pain relief and followed an X-ray (doctor) determined she had mild degenerative changes in the hip" and later showed that an Ms. of Ms. Guy's hip was finally performed on April 28, 2015, indicating a "history of right hip pain from a fall". [19659002] She did not mention back or hip pain during a visit in 2016, a record permit.

But a chiropractor, who started in August 2015 for three to four months, treated Mrs Guy's entire spine and her right hip, registry state.

In September 2016, almost two years after workplace injuries, Guy saw a neurosurgeon, complaining about low back pain, right hip pain and balance problems. "She provided information in a questionnaire that said she had not been injured at work," the state records. "Medical imaging two years after the event" reflected some mild facet changes "but" an otherwise normal lumbar "registry state.

Ms. Guy did not give a neurosurgeon history of accidents or trauma or that her condition was work related and she was treated not after the visit. But "his medical records note that she is addressing the workers' compensation. When asked if her spine was related to a work injury, (the doctor) testified that he did not have a patient-related story of a work-related injury, "testifies" that someone cannot retrieve a box and develop the degree of degenerative disease led by wife Guy. "

After an application denial, a work compensation judge established in 2018 that Ms. Guys" minor accident around October 23, 2014 "resulted in a" minor muscle strain in her mid-back. "

" WCJ also found that, since Mrs. Guy's employee fee of $ 30.00 was replaced by (her employer), she was not entitled to any additional medical benefits, "the ruling states."

"WCJ also decided that Mrs. Guy did not have evidence that any damage to her lower back, right hip or cervical spine was caused by an accident or injury within the scope of" employment record ".

Upon confirmation of the verdict, three judges of the panel of appeal found the judge's verdict to be supported by "facts", writes: "We do not find the ruling to be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong." Prop Shop could not be reached immediately for comment.

                    


Source link