Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

worker's comp help Michigan

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    If as a mechanic he was working in the same location as he does now, it is unlikely that his change in tasks would be enough to require testing as he was subjected to the same level of noise and environment regardless of the actual tasks he was performing. You also state he wears hearing protection which would seem to mitigate any claim that his hearing loss is caused by work. Whether ordered to wear it or worn of his own intiative, the outcome would be the same.

    Hearing loss, as a I said before, is one of those issues in WC for which there are specific parameters. Not every type and degree of hearing loss is caused by work, nor compensable. Without the doctor having any data from the worksite as to the noise level, frequency, duration or accoustics of the worksite, it would be nearly impossible for them to render a scientifically valid opinion.

    Any industrial disease or injury must be caused by work. That is what is meant by, "arising out of and in the course of employment". Just because it is evident at work, doesn't make it a WC claim.
    I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.

    Comment


    • #17
      workmens comp says it has to arise out of or in the course of employment. The work does not have to cause the injury. It is enough if the work couses, contributes to or aggrevates a condition which results in disability.
      Does all this sound like a plausable arguement??
      arise out of or in the course of employment. ...that is AOE/COE. And the basis for any work related injury/illness.
      It doesn't have to be a specific onset accident...what your are describing could/would be a CT or Cumulative Trauma injury. What you are going to need however is the medical evidence...not necessarily ''data from the worksite as to the noise level, frequency, duration or accoustics of the worksite''...if the treating physican can make even the casual relationship between his work/job duties, and the claimed injured body part, the claim could be determined compensable by a comp judge. As WC is no fault...the IW generally has the benefit of doubt, or presumption in WC. And judges are directed to opinine in favor of the IW lacking sufficient evidence to show otherwise.
      If this were a PI claim, there would undoubtedly be much more history relative to the injury/illness. Those comparisions would weigh much more heavily on the issues of liability.

      Where in WC the ER takes an EE ''as you are'' when hired. Whether or not there was a hearing problem at the time of hire would have manifested before now. And if that was a concern, all EE's would have been subject to testing through pre-employment examination. IF this was the case 11 years ago...there is your basis/comparision for the loss now.
      The medical treatment would be compensable/liable to the ER/IC, but not necessarily all of the subsequent disability if there is any...as determined again by 'medical evidence'. The non-industrial causation to PD would be subject to apportionment.

      He doesn't necessarily have to have wage loss, or be TTD in order to receive treatment under WC rules... IF there were to be an award/settlement it would be based on impairment..or the loss of ability to compete in the open labor market.

      As I said before, the merits of the claim are likely to be based on how MI governs claims for hearing loss... which are probably much like the rules for a psych claim... 51% of the injury directly due to AOE/COE.

      Comment

      The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
      Working...
      X