GQ Corner

Q. I have a claim reported for a 40 year old female who was a 5 week employee when she claimed overuse and CTS to both hands. I have learned that she is a musician, is in relatively good condition, and alleges no other health conditions prior. I do not find that CTS after 5 weeks employed is plausible. I took her statement and she moved here from California to pay off debts, though she didn’t clarify what debts she is talking about. She lives with her parents but had lived in California for 2 and ½ years and lived in New York City 13 and 1/3 years. The claimant has exaggerated to me about how many hours a week she was working. She is a cook for the client and her job is not repetitive in nature. She is not claiming any specific incident other than over time her right wrist hurt and then her left wrist hurt with pain and numbness. When I questioned the claimant about hobbies, she did not disclose that she is a musician and uses her hands. However, I discovered this evidence in speaking with the location manager, who advised me about that information.

A. There appears to be a reasonable basis for you to dispute that the claimant sustained a compensable injury. Your denial would be based on the fact that the claimant is alleging a repetitive trauma injury as a result of her work activities, but that your investigation reveals that she is not engaged in repetitive, physically traumatic activities at work. You should also assert that there is no expert causation evidence establishing how the nature, duration, and frequency of the work activities is the cause of the claimant’s complaints.

Q. We have any employee who was leaving work during the middle of the day to take her child to a dentist appointment. When she got into her personal car, she saw a bee on her leg. She had already put the car in reverse, and she tried to exit the car because of the bee. However, the car pulled her down and dragged her until she hit two other vehicles. She was on school district property. Would this be a compensable injury?

A. No, I do not think the evidence supports that this claim is compensable. An employee can be compensably injured while in the process of leaving work in an employer-controlled parking lot. But the injury must originate in a risk or hazard that is connected with that activity. In order for this bee sting injury to be compensable, the job must have placed the claimant “in harm’s way” for the occurrence of a bee sting. This can be proved by showing that the bee sting was “incident to the employment.” For example, if the job required the claimant to lift a piece of equipment that exposed a bee hive and the claimant was stung, the injury might be said to originate in the employment. But in this case, no instrumentality of her employer was involved in the injury. Under the facts that we have, it does not appear to be a compensable injury.