 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hembry v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office6/16/1994
cation prescribed and taken as a result of the industrial injury of 1987. He also found that a claim for degenerative disc disease was not filed and that, contrary to claimant's testimony, the cervical spine condition did not contribute to the permanent disability.
In addition, the ALJ implicitly determined that the claimant's 1991 fall resulted from the effects of the medication prescribed for the first injury and under ubiquitous conditions of his employment. Since the second injury could have happened at any time or place in which the employee happened to faint because of the effects of his medication, it was not caused by a separate industrial accident.
Accordingly, we agree with the Panel that there were not two separate compensable disabilities that would support imposition of liability on the SIF. See General Iron Works v. Industrial Commission, 719 P.2d 353 (Colo. App. 1985).
II.
Claimant also asserts that the Panel erred in determining that the SIF was not bound by the settlement agreement entered into by the employer and claimant, which treated the 1987 and 1991 incidents as separate compensable injuries. We disagree.
It is not necessarily inconsistent to treat an incident as the natural consequence of an original work injury for liability purposes and as a separate injury for settlement purposes. See In re Claim of Green, 789 P.2d 481 (Colo. App. 1990).
As the Panel concluded, the SIF was not a party to the agreement for full and final settlement. Although the reason for this is not clear from the record, we agree with the Panel that under such circumstances, the SIF neither adopted such agreement nor waived its right to contest the issues in dispute. See Hendricks v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 809 P.2d 1076 (Colo. App. 1990).
III.
Finally, claimant contends that the Panel erred in affirming the ALJ's determination regarding his neck condition. However, we agree with the Panel's Disposition of this issue.
Order affirmed.
JUDGE DAVIDSON and JUDGE BRIGGS concur.
Disposition
ORDER AFFIRMED
|