by William A. Green, Esq.

Perhaps due to several significant changes in the past few years, it appears that there are no major workers’ compensation proposals for 2016, according to Chairman Frank McCay. Chairman McKay addressed the issue at the annual Workers’ Compensation Law Seminar in St. Simon’s last month. He also discussed claims statistics, highlighting that more claims were filed and significantly more indemnity benefits were paid in 2014 versus 2013.

In addition, Director Elizabeth Gobeil from the Appellate Division led a discussion about recent Appellant Division decisions. While these cases are not binding, they do provide good insight into the position the Board is likely to take on specific legal issues. A summary of several of the decisions are provided here:

• Not Entitled to Transportation to Medical Appointments – The claimant was not entitled to transportation services to authorized medical appointments because the authorized treating physician had not placed any driving restrictions on the claimant and his inability to drive (no valid driver’s license) had no causal connection to his injury.

• Slip and Fall from Wet Floor: Arising Out Of/In the Course Of – The claimant slipped on a wet floor, apparently due to rain, when he was entering the premises. The Appellate Division determined there was a causal connection between the conditions under which the employment was performed and the injury. Although the claimant’s wet shoes were a partial cause of the accident, so was the laminate floor at the employer’s place of business, which created a causal connection between the employment and the injury. In addition, using the “positional risk doctrine” theory, the claimant was exposed to the risk (wet floor) due to the requirements of his employment.

• Physician at Facility on Posted Panel – Where a physician is in practice at a medical facility (Rockdale Medical Center) listed on the panel, the physician was considered to be an authorized provider.

• Unjustifiable Refusal of Offer of Light-Duty Work – An injured employee with brightly colored “rainbow” hair refused to change or cover her hair to conform to the dress code for the light-duty position being offered as a receptionist. The appellate division determined that because she was physically capable of performing the job, this was an unjustifiable refusal and she was not entitled to benefits.

For questions or further details about these cases, please do not hesitate to contact one of your attorneys at Ken David & Associates.