GQ Corner
Q. The claimant is working modified duty/non-profit. He is wearing a walking boot due to an injury when he was climbing on a mower. While in boot, his foot got caught and somehow it slipped causing his toe nail to be injured, which started to bleed. Would this be considered a continuation of prior claim or would it have to be filed as a new injury?
A. I think it is technically a new injury. New DOI, not directly due to the treatment received for the prior injury, not really caused by a weakened condition. However, if the IW does not mind adding it to the prior, it sure makes things easier. I think both will be addressed when he is there being seen for the old injury, so if it is just a first aid situation, I think you can probably keep them together without a problem. If he is still treating for the toe thing a month out, or it is a more major injury, then I would separate them.
Q. The claimant has discomfort in his throat primarily when he exerts a lot of energy or lays on his back. On 8/21/2020, he approached his supervisor to report discomfort in his throat. He stated that a week or two earlier he was transferring empty residue drums from his trailer to the drum trailer when he inhaled fumes from one of the empty residue drums. He exited the trailer to allow the fumes to expel and went to the truck to retrieve his respirator mask. He reported that he noticed discomfort in his throat the following days primarily when he exerted a lot of energy or laid on his back. No lost time. No medical care sought. However the HR director states EE reported the alleged injury several days after it occurred making it difficult to properly investigate the event. According to EE, he may have been exposed to chemical fumes in the week prior to the report; however, he could not provide a particular event that would have caused the exposure or identify the chemical that he was exposed to.
A. As I am reading it, I do not see what the injury is. It is an incident, but I do not see that we know whether he was injured. I guess the throat irritation could be the “injury”, but I think he would need to be able to point to a specific incident, which it sounds like he is not too sure of. Language for a denial would acknowledge a reported incident, but dispute the existence of an injury from the reported incident and an inability to pinpoint a reasonable period of time the incident was alleged to have occurred. On the other hand, it seems that it’s pretty minor, so if there was an injury accepted, a PLN-11 could limit it rather quickly and it should not be something that would be expected to blow up again.
FOLIO
