GQ Corner
Q. Question regarding compensability of a stroke after fall at work. On 5/6/19 a 62-year-old airplane mechanic had been working on an airplane in the hanger and as he was exiting the plane and started down the stairs, he had a misstep and fell down the stairs to the pavement, approximately 10-12 feet. He reports hitting his right leg on the door of the plane, then falling. He denied hitting his head and denies any other physical injuries. On or around 5/10/19, he had a stroke but did not realize it until 5/11/19. He was at work on 5/10 and 5/11. He became disoriented and had a hard time speaking on 5/11/19. His sister took him to the ER on 5/11 and he was told that he had a stroke. He has a large knot on his right leg from the fall and according to the injured worker, it has not gotten any better, but he states that the doctor does not feel it is a big deal and it was negative for DVT. The injured worker is an insulin dependent diabetic. He feels that the stroke is related to the fall at work. At this point, the only medical I have is a full duty release from his PCP indicating he can RTW FD 5/21/19. The employer sent him home on PTO due to ongoing issues with verbalization on 5/22/19. He now has RTW FD as of 6/6/19. We have not received any medical records as everything was filed under group insurance but providers told the nurse that they would be sent to us. The claimant did say that the doctor told him there was no way to determine if the stroke was from the fall. There are no issues with the fall at work, but I feel that the stroke should be disputed. There is no medical documentation to indicate that the stroke is from the fall. We do not have medical at this point to indicate that there was a blood clot in his leg and the claimant denies that he had a blood clot. Upon receipt of the medical, we will review the records. We received the claim on 5/24/19.
Are you in agreement with PLN 11 denial of the stroke?
A. Yes, I am in agreement: your dispute is that the May 6, 2019 compensable injury does not extend to include a stroke. There is no medical evidence, which links the stroke to the claimant’s May 6, 2019 injury. Additionally, the claimant may suffer from a pre-existing condition and/or an ordinary disease of life, which was neither caused by nor aggravated by the May 6, 2019 compensable injury.
Q. Please confirm whether Texas would have jurisdiction in the following scenario: Claimant was hired in Texas on 02/20/2019. But Claimant has never worked in Texas. Payroll taxes are being withheld under Kansas law. Claimant was injured in Kansas on 03/30/2019. Claimant resides in Colorado, but works in Kansas. Finally, Claimant is seeking medical treatment in Colorado and Kansas.
A. Sections 406.071 and 406.072 govern extraterritorial jurisdiction. The statute notes that a claim is compensable in Texas if the injury occurred elsewhere if:
(1) The injury would be compensable if it had occurred in this state; and
(2) The employee has significant contacts with this state OR the employment is principally located in this state.
It appears your claimant’s employment was not principally located in Texas, so we have to look at the significant contact section. Subsection (b) notes that an employee has significant contacts with this state if the employee was hired or recruited in this state AND
(1) Was injured not later than one year after the date of hire OR
(2) Has worked in this state for at least 10 working days during the 12 months preceding the date of injury.
Your claimant was hired in Texas, but has never worked in Texas. You will therefore have to see if he was injured not later than one year after the date of hire to determine if Texas has jurisdiction or not.
FOLIO
