GQ Corner
Q. This claimant suffered a second degree burn to her Right hand on 10/30/19. Her office is located in the main part of the hospital and she took a bridge that connects to the WISH building (which is where the Starbucks is located) to get tea for herself and another co-worker. The Starbucks is on Parkland property (whether or not the Starbucks is owned by Parkland is unknown).
As she was walking back to her office, one of the lids came off and the contents spilled on her Right hand.
Facts about the case:
– Her shift begins at 7:15 a.m. and ends at 4:30 p.m.
– She was on the clock at the time of the injury
– The injury occurred around 3 p.m.
– The coffee shop was located in another building at Parkland Hospital
– She was not instructed by an immediate supervisor or director to get Tea
I wanted to know if we could deny this claim as it was not in the course and scope of employment. The claimant took an unauthorized break to get tea.
A. Since she was still on the employer’s premises, this is likely going to fall under the Personal Comfort Doctrine. Getting a beverage is also going to fall within those types of things employees do for personal comfort. Although the break may not have been expressly authorized, my guess is they allow them to go and get drinks or go to the bathroom without needing authorization. Since she was in the vicinity of her employment and had not left the premises entirely, I think this is close enough that DWC will determine she was in the course and scope at the time of the injury.
Q. We have a claimant who is reporting an occupational illness for vocal nodes from yelling in her job duties as a coach. She has worked for Plano ISD for 5 years and is the coach for basketball, track and volleyball. She went to her PCP’s (after hours clinic) for a sinus infection. Because she was hoarse, the doctor asked her what she does for a living and told her that because she yells she probably has nodes and they referred her to an ENT. Nobody has done any testing to determine she has nodes but she is very hoarse. She reports that it is back Monday thru Thursday but gets better on the weekends?
Could this be something that is compensable? Could it be denied since there has been nothing done to effective diagnosis and then she can go to an ENT and if they think it is related our office can review? The problem is there aren’t many ENT’s that accept workers’ compensation and if appears to be compensable based on the medical documentation would our office have to pay for the treatment?
A. You have a basis to dispute compensability of this alleged occupational disease as the claimant has not established a credible link through medical evidence between her work and the vocal nodes with which she apparently has been diagnosed. This seems clearly to be an ordinary disease of life. You also have identified a date of injury issue for this occupational disease claim, and a likely late reporting issue under Sec. 409.002 as well.
There is actually a reported AP decision involving vocal nodes, AP 971576. In that case the Panel reversed the ALJ and rendered a decision that the repetitive talking claim was not compensable. The claimant had vocal nodules. The Appeals Panel seemed persuaded by a couple of aspects of the claim. First, the Panel reviewed the evidence of the claimant’s work duties carefully and agreed that there was no evidence that the claimant constantly talked as a part of her job. Second, and most important, the Panel reviewed the claimant’s talking performed in the work place and concluded that this talking was consistent with everyday conversation, and that the job did not require unusual exertion or vocal chord strain as a part of the employment. Third, the Panel reviewed the claimant’s long history of vocal nodule problems and concluded that the claimant’s condition was the result of her improper vocal habits both within the work place and outside the work place.
If your claimant can establish that she had an unusual amount of vocal chord exertion or strain as part of her job as a coach, and (with expert evidence) that this would cause or contribute to the vocal nodes, she may have a compensable claim. In that sense this is not unlike a hearing loss case, if you have ever dealt with one of those
FOLIO
