Denver Workers' Compensation Law Blog

Nearly everyone in Denver has felt that slight twinge after getting up from a long day in an office chair. Back pain and injuries to the lower back are extremely common for office workers and are often the reason why an employee will miss work. Although this is a problem that affects people across Colorado, it is often something that employers would be able to fix by making a few simple changes in the workplace.

The typical office worker will spend most of his or her day seated and in front of a computer. Constantly being in the same position and then often driving home in the same position puts a strain on the back. If Colorado employers broke up the day and encouraged employees to get up, move around or work from a different position throughout the day, it could reduce the number of back injuries.

Workers from the Colorado Department of Transportation convened this week to honor their coworkers who died on the job during the past year. Preliminary numbers indicate that 10 people were killed in work zones in 2011, and 96 other people were injured. A total of 830 crashes happened in Colorado work zones during the past year and the problem continues to grow, according to agency officials.

While the families who attended the ceremony may have received Colorado death benefits after their loved ones were killed on the job, they may have been wondering what more can be done to protect Department of Transportation workers from dangerous drivers. Ultimately, it is their employer's responsibility, in this case the state's, to keep workers safe. One of the men in attendance's father was killed in 2004 after an 11-year career with the Department. He was performing maintenance on a stretch of road when a driver ran over him and another worker. Both of the Department employees died.

Colorado construction workers know that their jobs are dangerous and that it is very easy to become injured on the job. A workplace injury does more than just cost a lot in medical costs, but it can prevent an employee from working for days, weeks or longer. These lost wages make it difficult for the injured Denver worker to pay his or her bills and puts pressure on his or her family to make ends meet.

Although there are many different kinds of injuries that a construction worker may expect on the job, it is likely that not many in Denver would include falling 40 feet into a vat of acid as one. Unfortunately, that is just what has happened to a 44-year-old construction worker while he was working on the roof of a factory.

Roadside construction and road repair is a dangerous occupation. Now that summer highway repair projects are underway, workers must prepare for the worst when avoiding the potential deadly hazards of reckless and speeding drivers.

Crews and contractors working for the Colorado Department of Transportation are preparing for another season of distracted drivers, one of the biggest dangers faced by road side crews. According to reports, the majority of these accidents are caused by rear-end collision related to driver distraction, such as use of cellphones, speeding, or inattentive driving.

Demmon v. Network Affiliates, Inc, W.C. 4-843-249 (March 21, 2012)

The Claimant worked at production company which, incidentally, produces commercials for attorneys. While bending over to put a compact disk into her computer, she sneezed and felt a sharp pain in her back. She later discovered that she had suffered a back injury and had a ruptured disk. The insurance carrier denied liability, asserting that the Claimant had a pre-existing back injury that was aggravated by sneezing, which could have happened anywhere and was not an incident of her employment.

The Claimant's expert, Dr. Jack Rook, testified that the Claimant did indeed have a pre-existing back condition and that sneezing while putting in the CD in a bent over position, caused the disk to rupture. Both sides appeared to argue the "special hazard" doctrine. However, the ALJ ruled in the Claimant's favor based on a finding that the sneeze brought on the Claimant's injury with the help of her being bent over to put in the CD. The link between the job and the injury was sufficient to find the disk rupture compensable. The special hazard doctrine was not a factor.

Still, since the parties brought it up, the ICAO explained the doctrine which is that a pre-existing idiopathic disease or condition which is not caused by the employment, can combine with a special hazard at work and result in a compensable work-related injury. The most common examples are the worker who loses consciousness at work for reasons unrelated to employment and then hits his head on a concrete floor. Since concrete floors are common, the injury is not compensable. This is contrasted with an employee who has an epileptic seizure while working on a scaffold. While the seizure had nothing to do with his employment, the scaffolding, which is not common everywhere, combined with the seizure to make the worker's resulting fall compensable. Ramsdell v. Industrial Commission, 705 P.2d 6 (Colo. App. 1985)

But this was not a case of a special hazard, since there's nothing particularly hazardous about putting a CD into a computer. This case turned on the ALJ's finding that the duties of the job combined with a pre-existing condition to cause the Claimant's injury. The ICAO mentions a previous case where it upheld a finding of compensability when a worker bent over to tie a shoelace and hurt his back. Chapa v. Mountain Meadows Nursing Center, W.C. No. 4-387-363 (October 7, 1999).

It is clear that the ICAO gave broad discretion to the ALJ to decide if there was a sufficient link between the injury and work. Had the ALJ found otherwise, his decision probably would have also been upheld on appeal. The fact that the Claimant's expert said that the act of bending over helped cause the injury was, no doubt, n significant factor in the ALJ's decision.

To learn more about workers compensation and back injuries to go my website at: http://www.eleylawfirm.com/Types-of-Injuries/Back-Injuries.shtml

Denver construction workers know how important workplace safety can be. The tiniest misstep, skipping a final check or rushing through a job could easily lead to temporary disability and lost wages. While the people of Colorado hope that these accidents won't happen, it is important to speak with an attorney when they do. The Colorado workers' compensation program is difficult to understand and anyone who is out of work because of an accident needs all the money they can get.

While it is unknown how much work two construction workers will miss as they recover in the hospital, they are lucky to be alive after a 70-foot construction crane fell. It is unknown if the employees were on the crane or if the crane fell on top of them, but they were injured and hospitalized after it tipped over near a construction site.

Aguirre v. Nortrack, W.C. 4-742-953 (ICAO 3-19-12) 

Getting medical benefits authorized is at least half the battle in many workers compensation cases.   There are specific procedures that need to be followed in getting authorization for medical treatment. They are covered in Rule 16-9 of the Workers Compensation Rules of Procedure. The rule provides that for many treatments, prior authorization must be requested. Among other things, the request must include a statement of the medical necessity of the treatment or procedure. Once a completed request for prior authorization has been submitted, the insurance carrier has 7 days to respond to the request.

In Mr. Aguirre's case the adjuster did not issue a timely response either allowing or denying spinal cord stimulator requested by his doctor. Mr. Aguirre's attorney set the matte for hearing and asked for penalties under §8-43-304 C.R.S. This is a section of the workers compensation statute that allows for penalties up to $1,000 per day for failure to follow the Colorado Workers Compensation Act, a rule of the Division of Workers Compensation or an order by a judge or the DOWC director. In this case, the alleged violation was that the adjuster had violated the rule not responding to the request for authorization within seven days.

This is where the Claimant's case for penalties fell apart. In his request, the doctor stated that a trial of the stimulator resulted in a 50% reduction in pain and that the Claimant wanted the stimulator. However, the administrative law judge found that the doctor never made a statement as to the medical necessity of the stimulator implant. One would think that a reduction in pain would be enough to show the treatment was needed but the ALJ found that the doctor never explained the medical necessity of the device. The doctor only said that it provided pain relief and that the Mr. Aguirre wanted to go forward with the implantation of the device. Since the request did not include a statement of medical necessity, it was not deemed a completed request for authorization. Therefore, the penalties requested by the Claimant were denied.

The lesson from this case is to make sure that requests for authorizations comply with Rule 16-9. If you are a medical provided, not following the rule completely can delay treatment. If you are a workers compensation attorney and a request for authorization is not acted upon by the adjuster, you should review the request to make sure it's in compliance prior to pursuing judicial remedies.  For more on medical benefits, visit the Eley Law Firm website.  http://www.eleylawfirm.com/Colorado-Workers-Comp/Medical-Benefits.shtml

It is the kind of accident that frequently becomes instant fodder for late-night television comedians. But for a woman at a General Services Administration office building who was injured when a toilet there exploded, it was no laughing matter. Her injuries required that she be rushed to a hospital for treatment. It has also caused many others employed at the federal government agency to become concerned that they may become injured on the job. The incident sent shards of the porcelain toilet flying through the air, injuring both the hospitalized woman and a co-worker in a bathroom on another floor where a similar explosion occurred.

The unusual nature of the accident and all humor aside, this was a workplace injury stemming from a dangerous condition. If something like this were to happen in Denver, an employee would clearly have grounds for a claim for workers' compensation benefits.