Carpenter’s 2nd Injury Gets Fresh Look from OAH

Case File

Whether a second injury warranted setting aside a new award required a look at the evidence. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the case.

Case

Lehet v. Roofers Advantage Program, No. WC24-6549 (W.C.C.A. Minn. 10/29/24)

What Happened

A carpenter suffered a work injury to his low back when he was struck by a 50,000-pound aerial lift arm. Over the years, he continued to experience pain and received treatment until, nearly 18 years after the injury, he suffered another low back injury while carrying a slippery shaft and rocket.

After a series of surgeries over four years, the carpenter's doctor restricted him from work, and the carpenter began receiving Social Security Disability income.

Based on issues related to the latter injury, the carpenter sought to vacate the original award due to a claimed substantial change in medical condition.

Rule of Law

In Minnesota, the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals has authority to vacate an award for "cause," which is defined as a mutual mistake of fact, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or a substantial change in medical condition since the time of the award that was clearly not anticipated and could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time of the award.

What the Court Said

Due to the change in the carpenter's diagnosis, a change of award was in order. The employer and insurer argued that the need for more extensive medical treatment was unrelated to the original work injury, but the court ruled that this needed to be determined in a new hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Workers' Comp 101: Per Fodness v. Standard Cafe, 41 W.C.D. 1054 (W.C.C.A. Minn. 1989) factors considered in addressing a claim of substantial change of medical condition include: a change in diagnosis, a change in the employee’s ability to work, additional permanent partial disability, the necessity of more costly and extensive medical care than initially anticipated, a causal relationship between the injury covered by the settlement and the employee’s current worsened condition, and the contemplation of the parties at the time of the settlement.

"Given that the employee has sustained a subsequent work injury to the same body part while working for a different employer which has not been litigated, and given that there is conflicting medical evidence, we require findings on the issue of whether the employee’s condition is causally related to the [latter] work related injury in order to obtain a full and fair resolution of the petition to vacate the [original] award," the court wrote.

Thus, the case was sent to the OAH.

Takeaway

To determine whether a later injury was connected to or separate from an earlier injury, the OAH must address whether:

(1) Whether the employee suffered a new work injury.

(2) The second injury was a superseding, intervening, or substantial contributing factor to the employee's disability.

(3) Whether the earlier injury remained a substantial contributing factor to the employee's condition.

(4) Whether apportionment of liability between the two dates is appropriate.

Share This Article: