What Do You Think: Was Tree Worker's Foot Injury Caused by Work?

Richmond, VA (WorkersCompensation.com) – When a worker’s foot turned painful after an on-the-job injury, it was up to a Virginia court to sort out whether it was work-related or just normal aging.

A worker experienced an injury when he fell from a tree while working for a tree trimming company. The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission granted the worker temporary total disability benefits and lifetime medical benefits for ankle, knee, spinal, sternal, and rib fractures.

Later, the worker sought benefits for surgery on his left foot. The worker was assigned a 15 percent partial impairment rating for his left ankle and a 12 percent permanent partial impairment rating for his left leg.

Eventually, the worker reported increasing pain in his left toe with stiffness, discoloration, and progressive deformity. He exhibited clawing of the second through fifth toes. His doctor opined that, while the worker was not having debilitating pain, his condition could worsen and require surgery. The

The doctor also opined that the worker’s foot issues were a direct result of his work injury and recommended surgery to correct them. The employer challenged the doctor’s opinion, relying on findings from an independent medical evaluation, which concluded that the work injury did not cause the worker’s problems. Instead, the IME doctor attributed the worker’s foot conditions to “common problems that many people develop as they get older.”

At a hearing, a deputy commissioner determined that a causal relationship between the worker’s foot condition and the work accident was lacking, prompting the worker to appeal to the full commission. The commission upheld the deputy’s rulings, finding that that the worker’s doctor’s opinion was “shaded by doubt.” The worker appealed to court.

In workers’ compensation, causation is a finding of fact that is typically proved by medical evidence. The treating physician’s opinion is entitled to great weight, but it’s not the only opinion courts can consider.

Did the worker show that his work injury caused his foot problems?

A. Yes. The worker’s doctor knew the worker’s health better than the IME doctor.

B. No. The IME doctor’s opinion was enough for the commission to reject the worker’s claim.

If you chose B, you agreed with the court Rankin v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., No. 1058-21-4 (Va. Ct. App. 04/19/22, unpublished), which upheld the commission’s and deputy commissioner’s rulings in the company’s favor. The court pointed out that, even the worker’s doctor noted that the worker had good sensation in his toes, intact muscle strength, and no pain with pedal joint range of motion.

The court also highlighted the IME doctor’s opinion that the worker’s issues stemmed from “progressive bunion deformity with arthritis, and rigid contracted hammertoes.”

The court found that the IME doctor’s opinion as well as another doctor’s opinion aligned with the worker’s medical history and supported the conclusion that the injury was not work-related.

This feature does not provide legal advice.

Share This Article: