GQ Corner
Q. Is damage or harm to an artificial limb, or preexisting implant, considered compensable? In other words, is the artificial limb or implant considered a part of the body?
A. As a general rule, it is not. “Injury” is defined in Sec. 401.011(26) of the WC Act as “damage or harm to the physical structure of the body and a disease or infection naturally resulting from the damage or harm.”
A Court of Appeals in 1985 held in National Union Fire v. James that the breaking of a temporary metal plate used to repair a fractured femur was not a compensable breaking of the bone.
The AP stated in APD 91001 that a fall resulting in damage to an artificial leg and contusion to the stump of the amputated leg supporting a finding of the occurrence of a compensable injury. Notably, in that case “there was a distinct injury to the respondent other than the damage or injury to the artificial leg. The evidence convincingly supports the hearing officer’s finding of injury to the stump of the respondent’s natural leg. Indeed, there is unrebutted evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the contusion or bruising to the stump from the fall directly related to a necessary change in the weight distribution or pressure points on the stump in fitting it to the replacement of the artificial leg.”
APD 992911 held where the only resulting condition from an incident is the breaking or damage to a prosthetic device without any corresponding injury to a body part, such would generally not result in a compensable injury.
The definition of “Health Care” found in Sec. 401.011(19)(F) was changed in 2002 to include “a medical or surgical supply, appliance, brace, artificial member, or prosthetic or orthotic device, including the fitting of, change or repair to, or training in the use of the appliance, brace, member, or device.” The legislative history to this change would suggest that the intent was to establish damage to such a device constitutes a compensable injury; however, the definition of “injury” under which the above referenced decisions occurred was not changed. Short of a legislative change to the definition of “injury”, the holdings mentioned remain applicable, and damage to an artificial appliance without some other physical injury to a worker’s body is not an “injury” under the WC Act.
FOLIO
