Authored by Megan Caramore.
The Court of Appeals recently considered whether a claimant’s alleged violation of pre-existing medical restrictions could warrant a denial of workers’ compensation benefits. In Staton v. The Bros. Signal Co., 66 Va. App. 185, 783 S.E.2d 539 (2016), the claimant suffered from pre-existing knee problems and his physician had instructed him to avoid walking on unlevel terrain, as he would be at a risk of re-injury. The claimant stepped into quicksand-like soil while walking at his worksite and injured his knee.
The Commission determined that the injury did not qualify as accidental because it was the expected result of the claimant’s failure to adhere to his physician’s repeated instructions. The Court of Appeals reversed the Commission, stating that “to warrant the denial of benefits, the evidence must prove more than the employee’s violation of a medical restriction; it must also prove that the violation is the activity that caused the employee’s injury.” The Court also held that “medical restrictions must be clearly communicated and specific before a claimant’s violation of such restrictions may bar the recovery of benefits. Generalized medical admonitions are insufficient.”
Attorney Advertising. This Web site may be considered advertising under the rules of some states. Prior results described on this site cannot and do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter that we or any lawyer may be retained to handle. See full disclaimer
© 2015 Vandeventer Black LLP
101 West Main Street, Suite 500, Norfolk, Virginia 23510
You must read and accept these terms in order to send us email.
Use of this website for communication does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter for which we do not already represent you. Please do not send any confidential or privileged information electronically via this website unless we have already agreed to represent you.
If you send us information electronically via this website, you agree that our review of that information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and, further, even if it is highly confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.