Legal Corner

Workers Compensation
Crossing guard's fall in parking lot compensable - Illinois

In Western Springs Police Department v. IWCC, a crossing guard injured her wrist in a slip and fall incident as she exited the parking lot to begin her shift. The case went through several appeals centered on the work-relatedness of the injury. The injury occurred in a municipal-owned parking lot that was open to the public and slip-and-fall incidents that occur while an employee is walking to work off-premises are generally not compensable. However, there is an exception when the employee is injured in a parking lot provided by and under the control of the employer, and the injury is caused by some hazardous condition in the lot.

The appeals court pointed to the guard's testimony that the village granted her and several other village employees the privilege of parking in the public parking spaces beyond the four-hour limit applicable to the general public. Therefore,the parking space where the guard fell was an employer-provided parking area and the injuries are compensable.

Death by suicide related to PTSD qualifies as killed in line of duty - Minnesota

In the Matter of Lannon, a deputy sheriff had witnessed many horrific incidents in his career as a police officer and deputy sheriff. He was diagnosed with anxiety and depression that "could be" related to PTSD and began therapy. After some non-work-related injuries and medical leave, he returned to work and sought counseling with a new therapist, who recorded "an initial diagnostic impression of PTSD."

Shortly thereafter, his supervisor brought him to a hospital because he was experiencing suicidal ideations and he was admitted for inpatient psychiatric care. Five days after being discharged, he committed suicide. His death certificate listed depression and PTSD as "contributing conditions." His widow sought death benefits. Her petition was denied and an Administrative Law Judge reasoned, "PTSD and depression are not, themselves, fatal conditions and were not the immediate cause of Deputy Lannon's death."

While the Court of Appeals said the meaning of "killed in the line of duty" has no statutory definition and is ambiguous, it does not include deaths from natural causes but, it includes coverage for deaths caused by accidental means. Case law defined the phrase "killed in the line of duty" to mean "death resulting from the performance of those duties peculiar to a peace officer that expose the officer to the hazard of being killed." Therefore, "killed in the line of duty" is broad enough to encompass a death by suicide resulting from PTSD caused by performing duties peculiar to a public safety officer.

Despite conflicting diagnoses sheriff's deputy entitled to benefits for PTSD - Minnesota

The case, Juntunen v. Carlton County, involved benefits for a deputy sheriff who presented a diagnosis of PTSD from a licensed psychologist and his employer offered a competing diagnosis of depression. The question whether a legal determination that the employee's diagnosis of PTSD is more credible than a competing expert opinion offered by the employer was an issue of first impression, and the case made its way to the state's highest court.

The court found that the presumption applied based on the statute -"an employee need only present a diagnosis for the presumption to apply, not that the diagnosis is determined by a compensation judge to be more credible or persuasive than any competing diagnosis offered by an employer." Although the law allows an employer to rebut by presenting "substantial factors" the county's evidence did not suggest that the deputy's doctor's evaluations were inaccurate.

Disability must directly and significantly aggravate or accelerate work injury for PTD benefits - Missouri

In Swafford v. Treasurer, a divided Supreme Court upheld a denial of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from the Second Injury Fund to a hostler for a trucking company who had multiple preexisting disabilities. He suffered from ankylosing spondylitis, various cardiac conditions, and bursitis in his right shoulder. When he slipped and fell at work, he suffered tears to his rotator cuff and labrum. Two physicians opined that his preexisting disabilities had some worsening effect on his primary injury and he filed a claim for PTD benefits against the Second Injury Fund, alleging his preexisting disabilities, combined with his work injury, rendered him permanently and totally disabled.

To be entitled to PTD benefits, preexisting disabilities must "significantly and directly aggravated his primary injury." The high court noted that it has not previously construed the phrase "directly and significantly aggravates or accelerates" but said it means the preexisting disabilities must directly and significantly exacerbate the work injury. Since the doctor did not clearly articulate the extent to which any of his disabilities exacerbated the injury, benefits were denied.

Death benefits approved for illegitimate child - North Carolina

In North Carolina Industrial Commission v. J.H. Honeycutt & Sons Inc., a Court of Appeals upheld a finding that a worker killed in a truck accident had an acknowledged illegitimate child who was substantially dependent on him for support. A deputy commissioner awarded death benefits to the employee's mother and two minor children who were identified by the company as potential dependents. The company appealed the decision regarding one child who was born to the employee's college girlfriend, but he was not listed as the father on the birth certificate because the girlfriend was unsure who was the biological father. He never requested a paternity test and co-parented up until his death. A DNA test after his death revealed he was likely not the father.

The Industrial Commission found the acts of caring for and supporting the child from her birth until his death made her an acknowledged child. The Court of Appeals agreed noting an illegitimate child does not receive a presumption of death benefits but must show she was both acknowledged and substantially dependent.

Case to watch: Ruling expected soon on cannabis reimbursement - Pennsylvania

Throughout the country, state courts have split on whether injured workers should have access to marijuana and how. Some have ruled reimbursement is permitted or even required it and others have said it would violate the federal Controlled Substances Act. The Commonwealth Court is expected to soon weigh in on the issue in Sheetz v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Firestone Tire & Rubber). The state's medical marijuana law contains no requirement for employers to cover the cost of a worker's medical marijuana but it is silent on reimbursement.

Injury that aggravates preexisting condition not compensable - West Virginia

In Carter v. Davis Health System, a healthcare worker injured her back while moving patients. She had a "consistent" medical history of sciatica with an increased level of back pain dating back to 2017. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which agreed with lower courts that had denied the claim. Under state law, a non-compensable, preexisting injury may not be added as compensable for workers compensation medical benefits when it is aggravated by a compensable injury.