Five Recent Workers’ Comp Cases You Should Know About (11/25/2011) – Climbing Over Guardrail and Jumping or Falling 60 Feet Was Not Within Course of Employment

Larson's Spotlight on Statute of Limitations, Structured Settlements, Special Errand, Unexplained Fall, and LHWCA Maximum Weekly Rate. Larson's surveys the latest case developments that you need to know about. Thomas A. Robinson, the staff writer for Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, has compiled the list below.

KY: Worker's Act of Climbing Over Guardrail and Either Jumping or Falling Some 60 Feet Was Not Unexplained; Injuries Were Unrelated to Employment

A Kentucky appellate court recently held that serious injuries sustained by a diabetic and insulin dependent laborer when he apparently climbed over a guardrail and jumped or fell some 60 feet from a bridge structure where he had been working did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.  Stressing that this was not an unexplained fall case and quoting multiple sections of Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, the court found that the employment did not place the worker in a position of risk; the guardrail actually was placed at the site to prevent such accidents.  His decision to climb over the guardrail prompted his injuries. The worker's fall was caused by his actions unrelated to his employment.  His injuries did not originate from a risk connected with his employment and did not flow from his employment as a "rational consequence.

FREE VERSION: Access the case on lexisONE free case law. Click on tab for Free Case Law. Click on the radio button for Search by Citation. Enter this citation: 2011 Ky. App. LEXIS 229. Then click on the red button Search for Free. Note: If you haven't registered for free at lexisONE, you will be prompted to do so in order to access the free case law.

FULLY FEATURED VERSION: Lexis.com subscribers can read the fully featured case here. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 7.04.

IN: Ten Year Statute of Limitations Applies to Medical Provider's Claim Against Employer For Authorized Treatment of Injured Worker

The Supreme Court of Indiana recently held that the state's Worker's Compensation Act is silent on the question of the limitation period applicable to a medical provider's claim seeking payment of outstanding bills for authorized treatment to an employer's employee. The court concluded, therefore, that the limitation period contained in the general statute of limitation [Indiana Code § 34-11-1-2, ten years] controlled.

FREE VERSION: Access the case on lexisONE free case law. Click on tab for Free Case Law. Click on the radio button for Search by Citation. Enter this citation: 2011 Ind. LEXIS 1011. Then click on the red button Search for Free. Note: If you haven't registered for free at lexisONE, you will be prompted to do so in order to access the free case law.

FULLY FEATURED VERSION: Lexis.com subscribers can read the fully featured case here. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 94.02.

MO: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Has Authority to Approve or Disapprove Structured Settlement Regarding Death Benefits Case

The Court of Appeals of Missouri recently held that the state's Labor and Industrial Relations Commission should not have denied a motion to approve a structured settlement with the family of a deceased employee because it had the authority to do so under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.241, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.390, and Mo. Code Regs. Ann. tit. 8, § 20-3.010(4).  The Commission could either approve or disapprove any settlement attempted to be made; it was error, however, for the Commission to determine that it lacked authority to consider the merits of the settlement.

FREE VERSION: Access the case on lexisONE free case law. Click on tab for Free Case Law. Click on the radio button for Search by Citation. Enter this citation: 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1547. Then click on the red button Search for Free. Note: If you haven't registered for free at lexisONE, you will be prompted to do so in order to access the free case law.

FULLY FEATURED VERSION: Lexis.com subscribers can read the fully featured case here. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 132.06.

NY: Special Order Cake Found In Post-Accident Inspection of Vehicle in Fatal Car Crash Points to Driver's Performance of "Special Errand"

A New York appellate court recently affirmed a finding that an employee's death in an automobile accident that occurred after his regularly scheduled work shift had concluded nevertheless arose out of and in the course of his employment where evidence suggested that the employer sometimes asked the worker to deliver special order cakes to a certain restaurant on his way home from work, that the site of the accident was a mere two minutes from the restaurant, and a post-accident inspection of the vehicle revealed a cake box bearing the name of the bakery that made the special order cakes.  Substantial evidence supported a finding that the decedent was on a special errand at the time of the fatal accident.

FREE VERSION: Access the case on lexisONE free case law. Click on tab for Free Case Law. Click on the radio button for Search by Citation. Enter this citation: 2011 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8131. Then click on the red button Search for Free. Note: If you haven't registered for free at lexisONE, you will be prompted to do so in order to access the free case law.

FULLY FEATURED VERSION: Lexis.com subscribers can read the fully featured case here. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 14.05.

US: For LHWCA Claims, Maximum Weekly Rate of Compensation Is Governed By Rate In Effect At Time of Award, Not Date on Which Disability Occurred

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, applying what it termed "long-standing principles of statutory construction," recently held that with regard to claims filed under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act the date on which the injured employee was awarded benefits for such disability determines the maximum weekly rate of compensation for a permanently totally disabled employee who is "newly awarded compensation," and not the date on which the disability.  The court indicated that a plain reading of 33 U.S.C.S. § 906(b) and (c) compelled the holding that a person like plaintiff who never received compensation for a covered disability that commenced in 2002, and who was newly awarded compensation in 2008, was entitled to have his maximum compensation rate determined by reference to the national average weekly rate applicable to the date on which he received his award.

FREE VERSION: Access the case on lexisONE free case law. Click on tab for Free Case Law. Click on the radio button for Search by Citation. Enter this citation: 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22900. Then click on the red button Search for Free. Note: If you haven't registered for free at lexisONE, you will be prompted to do so in order to access the free case law.

FULLY FEATURED VERSION: Lexis.com subscribers can read the fully featured case here. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 93.04.

Source: Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, the nation's leading authority on workers' compensation law

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.

Comments

Anonymous
Anonymous
  • 11-29-2011

Has anybody heard of Cabezas vs Kragen case in CA or have any info on this case?