 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hembry v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office6/16/1994
Tyle E. Hembry, claimant, seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Panel insofar as it failed to assess liability against the Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF). We affirm.
Initially, we note that a full and final settlement was reached between claimant and his employer, Farmers Implement Company, Inc., and approved by the director. Thereafter, since the remaining issue concerned only the liability of the SIF, the parties stipulated to dismissal of the insurer as a necessary party.
In determining such liability after a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the claimant sustained a compensable back injury in November 1987 while working for the employer and that this injury resulted in chronic back pain for which certain medication was prescribed. Claimant returned to work without restrictions, but sustained a second injury in 1991 when he fainted upon rising from his chair after a coffee break.
Relying on certain medical evidence, the ALJ specifically found that the fainting episode of May 1991 was caused by the medication prescribed for the first injury. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that the claimant's permanent total disability was solely the result of the 1987 injury and that the 1991 incident was not a separate industrial injury. Accordingly, the ALJ denied and dismissed the claim against the SIF. On review, the Panel affirmed.
I.
Claimant first contends that the Panel erred in determining that the 1991 injury was not a separate compensable injury. We disagree.
In reaching the Conclusion that the second injury did not constitute a separate compensable event but was the natural and proximate result of the first injury, the Panel relied upon Excel Corp. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 860 P.2d 1393 (Colo. App. 1993).
Excel applied the "quasi-course-of-employment" doctrine to an activity that would not be considered an employment activity for normal purposes because it took place outside the time and space limits of normal employment. However, we conclude that Excel is not dispositive here because the related issues of the employer's liability and whether the 1991 injury occurred during the time and space elements of normal employment were not in dispute. See In re Question Submitted by U.S. Court of Appeals, 759 P.2d 17 (Colo. 1988).
An employer is responsible for the direct and natural consequences which flow from a compensable injury. Travelers Insurance Co. v. Savio, 706 P.2d 1258 (Colo. 1985). Whether a causal connection exists between the work-related injury and subsequent injury is a question of fact. Baca v. Helm, 682 P.2d 474 (Colo. 1984).
If the direct cause of an accident or injury is the employee's preexisting condition, the resulting disability is compensable if a special hazard of the employment contributed to the accident or the injuries sustained by the employee. National Health Laboratories v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 844 P.2d 1259 (Colo. App. 1992). See also Ramsdell v. Horn, 781 P.2d 150 (Colo. App. 1989).
However, a later accident that occurs under ubiquitous conditions not peculiar to the work environment does not render the subsequent injury or disability separately compensable. See Gates Rubber Co. v. Industrial Commission, 705 P.2d 6 (Colo. App. 1985); Irwin v. Industrial Commission, 695 P.2d 763 (Colo. App. 1984).
Here, the ALJ expressly determined that the 1991 injury and resulting permanent total disability were caused by the medi
Page 1 2 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|