workers compensation

Tow Truck Driver in Downtown LA, Slamming into Parked Cars: Injured Workers in the News, #102

In Los Angeles, a Tow Truck Driver made news when he crashed into number of cars.  Both he, and another driver, were injured and taken to the hospital.  The Dailymail reports that the Truck Driver was detained on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. The Police, at the time of the reporting, were still investigating the accident.

This article will discuss where intoxication can impact a work injury.

What Impact Can Intoxication Have On A Workers’ Compensation Claim?

In this instance, if the Tow Truck Driver was on-the-clock, this injury would be considered as AOE/COE, arising out of and in the course and scope of employment.

The Labor Code, however, provides an intoxication defense for Insurance Companies.   Labor Code Section 5705, provides that “[t]he burden of proof rests upon the party or lien claimant holding the affirmative of the issue. The following are affirmative defenses, and the burden of proof rests upon the employer to establish them:  (b) Intoxication of an employee causing his or her injury.”

In Smith vs. WCAB (1981) 46 C.C.C. 1053, the court indicated. We conclude that the California employer is required to establish that intoxication is a proximate cause or substantial factor in bringing about an accident resulting in death, and further, that this record supports the board’s determination that such causation was shown. Causation is a question of fact unless the issue is so clear that reasonable minds could not differ. (See Prosser, op. cit. supra, at p. 240 see also, Industrial Indem. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1952) 108 Cal. App. 2d 632, 637 [17 Cal. Comp. Cases 17, 239 P.2d 477] and International Cementers, Inc. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1950) 15 Cal. Comp. Cases 33, in which there were conflicting inferences and evidence regarding both intoxication and cause of the accidents.)

Essentially, an employer must prove two elements.  First, the intoxication and second that the intoxication was a proximate cause of the injury.  In this instance, the Tow Truck Driver’s blood alcohol content taken close to the time of the accident is a very important piece of evidence to prove intoxication.  This blood alcohol test would have to be interpreted by a medical professional as to whether that would constitute intoxication.   Further, additional  medical opinion addressing the cause of the injury/accident would be needed.  Further, accident reports and police reports may also provide data to allow for a conclusion as to proximate cause.

What If I Need Legal Advice?

If you would like a free consultation regarding workers’ compensation, please contact the Law Offices of Edward J. Singer, a Professional Law Corporation. We have been helping people in Central and Southern California deal with their workers’ compensation cases for 30 years. Contact us today for more information.

 

group of police officers in a subway station

Sergeant Accused Of Pulling Fellow Officer’s Ponytail: Injured Workers in the News, # 74

A Police Sergeant reportedly yanked a fellow officer’s ponytail while at the Police Station.  The hair tug, according to a complaint, caused the Officer to have “substantial” neck pain.  It was reported that the Officer had prior neck problems and that the Police Sergeant, who pulled the hair, was aware of her medical condition nypost.com

This article will discuss this fact pattern within California Workers’ Compensation law.

Was This A Work Injury?

Under California Law, the aggravation or acceleration of a pre-existing medical condition can be considered as a work injury. So, if the Police Officer’s condition worsen and it was not a mere exacerbation of the prior condition, it can be considered a new injury.  Likewise, there must be an injury.  The claim of substantial pain is not sufficient to warrant a claim of injury. There should be a diagnosis.  Was this a cervical strain and sprain?  Did the incident cause a cervical disc injury? Thus, a medical opinion from a treating doctor or an evaluating physician is important.

Did This Instance Warrant Any Other Workers’ Compensation Claim?

Given the facts, it is possible that the pulling of the hair would constitute an act of serious and willful misconduct.  Given the alleged facts that the supervisor knew that the worker had a prior neck injury when she pulled her by her ponytail may bring the action to the level of serious and willful misconduct.  If found, there would be an additional increase in compensation and penalty that would apply. The S & W would only apply if there was an underlying injury.  Per California Labor Code Section 4553 “[t]e amount of compensation otherwise recoverable shall be increased one-half, together with costs and expenses not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250), where the employee is injured by reason of the serious and willful misconduct of any of the following: (a) The employer, or his managing representative…”

What if I Need Advice?

If you would like a free consultation regarding workers’ compensation, please contact the Law Offices of Edward J. Singer, a Professional Law Corporation. We have been helping people in Central and Southern California deal with their workers’ compensation cases for 27 years. Contact us today for more information.

9.3Edward Jay Singer
Edward Jay SingerReviewsout of 22 reviews