What Do You Think: Did Head Pain, Confusion Explain Delayed Reporting of Shoulder Injury?

Baton Rouge, LA (WorkersCompensation.com)–Sometimes, a worker’s delay in reporting an injury can cast doubt on whether the injury is truly work-related—particularly, when the primary evidence is the worker’s testimony. But can the circumstances of an injury justify the delay?

On May 17, 2018, a welder was sweeping when he felt hot and dizzy and "was blinded." He tried to hold onto a table but fell to the ground hitting his right shoulder. He crawled on the floor towards a chair and pulled himself up on it.

The company’s safety manager later said that when she saw him, the welder was not himself and was completely out of it. An ambulance took him to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with malignant hypertension.

The welder later testified that he didn’t remember much that happened right after the incident or when he arrived at the hospital. The welder, who did not speak English, said he neglected to mention his shoulder pain because he was focused on his head, which felt like it was going to “explode,” and because he wanted to return to work as soon as he could. A doctor testified that the patient was a “poor historian”— a possible explanation for not mentioning the shoulder injury. 1

Following his discharge on May 23, 2018, the welder complained of shoulder pain to his physician and was diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff.

The welder filed for worker’s compensation benefits for the shoulder. A worker’s compensation judge, finding the shoulder injury arose of the workplace accident, awarded benefits.

The appeals court explained that in Louisiana, a claimant's testimony alone may be sufficient to establish he suffered a workplace provided:

1. No other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt on the worker's version of the incident.
2. The worker's testimony is corroborated by the circumstances following the alleged incident.

The company argued on appeal that the employee didn’t establish those elements because he failed to mention the shoulder injury until two weeks after the incident.

Did the welder establish a workplace injury?

A. Yes. The reporting delay was insignificant, given the circumstances.

B. No. The worker’s explanation for waiting to report the injury was not believable.

If you chose A you sided with the court in Rabadan. v. Turner Industries, No. 2022 CA 0442 (La. Ct. App. 11/04/22), which reasoned that, under the circumstances, it was understandable that the worker didn’t immediately report the injury.

The court pointed out that the worker testified that he had no recollection of anything from the time he fell until he was in the emergency room. The safety manager’s testimony supported that statement, the court observed.

The court acknowledged that the welder waited two weeks to report the shoulder injury to his doctor. But that wasn’t determinative, given that “an employee should not be barred from recovery because he did not realize or diagnose the full extent of his injury immediately after it happened,” the court wrote.

Evidence that the welder was a “poor historian,” didn’t speak English, and wanted to return to work as soon as possible further supported the WCJ’s determination that the reporting delay was insignificant.

The court affirmed the WCJ’s decision.

This feature does not provide legal advice.

For compliance information from 53 U.S. jurisdictions, including Louisiana, visit WorkCompResearch

Share This Article: