View From the Bench

Workers’ Comp Docket

Significant workers' compensation legal decisions from around the country.
By: | March 2, 2017 • 9 min read

Exposure to Pigeon Droppings Results in Compensable Claim

Lankford v. Newton County, et al., No. SD34269 (Mo. Ct. App. 01/17/17)

Ruling: The Missouri Court of Appeals held that an investigator suffered a compensable occupational disease.

What it means: In Missouri, a worker does not have to establish an “unequal exposure” for an occupational disease claim. The worker must show that the disease he suffered is not an “ordinary disease of life to which the general public is exposed outside of the employment.”

Summary: An investigator for the prosecutor’s office smoked in the employer’s basement. He began going to the roof of the building to smoke at the suggestion of an assistant prosecutor. He said that he preferred the roof because it was quiet, and he could think about the case he was working on. While on the roof, coworkers sought him out to talk about work-related matters.

The roof was a popular place for pigeons, and pigeon droppings accumulated there. The investigator was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. He was also diagnosed with diseases relating to the exposure to pigeon droppings.

He underwent surgery and had a stroke, which left him unable to work. The investigator filed a workers’ compensation claim, asserting that his exposure to pigeon droppings caused an injury to his lungs and respiratory system. Subsequently, the investigator died due to complications of pneumonia and COPD. The Missouri Court of Appeals held that the investigator’s occupational disease was compensable.

The employer argued that the investigator’s duties did not require his presence on the employer’s roof, and the employer did not receive a benefit from the investigator retreating from his job to the roof to be alone and smoke 10 times per day.

The court found that the investigator’s exposure to pigeons and pigeon droppings arose out of and in the course of his employment. Experts agreed that the investigator underwent lung surgery to treat the infection caused by the bird droppings. The court found that the evidence establishes that the investigator’s work activities caused the exposure to the infection.

Award of Benefits Does Not Confer Immunity to Coworker

Entila, et al. v. Cook, et al., No. 92581-0 (Wash. 01/12/17)

Ruling: The Washington Supreme Court held that a coworker was not immune from a third-party suit because he was not acting in the course and scope of his employment when the accident occurred.

What it means: In Washington, the fact that a worker received workers’ compensation benefits plays no role in determining a coworker’s immunity in a third-party suit.

Summary: A worker for Boeing finished work for the day and was walking across the employer’s access road when he was struck by a coworker who was driving his vehicle out of the employee parking lot. The worker received workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries and sued the coworker.

The coworker argued that he was immune from suit because he was acting in the course of his employment and Boeing’s employer immunity shielded him from liability. The Washington Supreme Court held that the coworker was not immune from suit.

The court explained that if an injured worker qualified for benefits, the employer cannot be sued. However, the worker’s receipt of benefits does not control third-party immunity. The court explained that a third-party coworker is not eligible for immunity unless he is in the “same employ” as the injured worker. “Same employ” can be shown when the coworker is acting in the course of employment.

The court sent the case back to the trial court.

Passing Mention of Soreness Does Not Constitute Notice of Work Injury

Ross v. American Ordnance, et al., No. 16-0787 (Iowa Ct. App. 01/11/17, unpublished)

Ruling: In an unpublished decision, the Iowa Court of Appeals held that a worker’s claim was barred because she failed to provide sufficient notice of her injury to her employer.

What it means: In Iowa, a worker must give her employer notice of an injury within 90 days unless the employer has actual knowledge of the injury.

Summary: A worker for American Ordnance claimed that she told her supervisor that she hurt her shoulder when a box fell over. The supervisor said that the worker said her shoulder hurt a little bit. The supervisor asked if she wanted to call an ambulance or see a doctor, but she declined.

The worker continued to have problems with her shoulder. She was eventually diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff that required surgery. More than 90 days after the alleged injury, the worker filed a workers’ compensation claim. The Iowa Court of Appeals held that her claim was barred because she failed to provide American sufficient notice of her claim.

The court found that the worker had to do more than tell the supervisor that her shoulder was sore. She did not tell him there was a reasonable possibility that her condition was related to her work. The court found that American did not have actual knowledge of a reasonable possibility that her injury was related to her work.

The worker argued that the discovery rule applied to her claim. Under the discovery rule, the 90-day notice period would not begin to run until the worker recognized the nature, seriousness, and probable compensable nature of the condition.

The court rejected the argument, finding that the worker recognized the nature, seriousness, and probable compensable character of her injury on the date it occurred, so she informed her supervisor at the time of her injury.

A dissenting judge found that the worker provided sufficient notice to the employer when she said that a box fell and that she hurt her shoulder. The judge pointed out that the supervisor responded by offering to call for an ambulance.

Worker Wins Benefits for Blackout Accident Caused by Non-Work Factors

Nuclear Diagnostic Products, 116 NYWCLR 211 (N.Y. W.C.B., Panel 2016)

Ruling: The New York Workers’ Compensation Board held that a driver, who crashed his work vehicle after losing consciousness while driving, sustained a compensable accident under the WCL.

What it means: In New York, where a worker loses consciousness while driving the employer’s vehicle in the course of his employment, he is entitled to a presumption that his accident arose out of his employment.

Summary: The board held that a driver who crashed his work vehicle after losing consciousness while driving sustained a compensable accident. The driver reported to hospital staff that he started coughing, lost control of the car, and then remembered someone waking him up after the accident.

He also reported that he had been coughing due to an asthmatic reaction to a new air freshener in his house. The board explained that because the driver’s accident occurred in the course of his employment he was entitled to a presumption that the accident arose out of his employment.

Although a review of the medical records indicated that the driver lost consciousness due to a coughing attack caused by his asthma condition, the driving of the employer’s vehicle was an added risk of employment. This added risk caused the injuries to his neck and back. Therefore, the driver’s claim was compensable.

Worker Denied Benefits for PTSD After Death of Infant Client

Griffin v. Luzerne County Children and Youth, 31 PAWCLR 233 (Pa. W.C.A.B. 2016)

Ruling: The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the workers’ compensation judge’s decision denying benefits to a caseworker who alleged she sustained post-traumatic stress disorder and depression after the traumatic death of a young baby she was supervising.

What it means: In Pennsylvania, the traumatic death of a baby that a caseworker is supervising is not sufficiently extraordinary or unusual within the context of the caseworker’s specific employment to rise to the level of an abnormal working condition.

Summary: The board affirmed the WCJ’s decision denying benefits to a caseworker who alleged that she sustained post-traumatic stress disorder and depression after the traumatic death of a young baby she was supervising.

Evidence indicated the caseworker had been at the baby’s home and held the baby. After she left, the parents began drinking, and ultimately, the mom closed the baby in the recliner and left him there all night.

On appeal, the caseworker argued the WCJ erred in finding that she failed to establish abnormal working conditions. Rejecting this argument, the board explained that the events in this case, while indisputably tragic, were not found to be sufficiently extraordinary or unusual, within the context of the caseworker’s specific employment, to rise to the level of an abnormal working condition. The caseworker had to deal with abused and neglected children, and her agency was charged with reviewing these types of scenarios.

Relying on a prior case holding that the more fact intensive the inquiry, the more deference a reviewing court should give to the WCJ’s findings, the board found no sound basis for disturbing the WCJ’s decision.

Evidence Establishes That Mosquito Bite at Work Led to Compensable West Nile

Allen v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc., No. 51,080-WCA (La. Ct. App. 01/11/17)

Ruling: The Louisiana Court of Appeal held that an operator established a work-related accident when he was bitten by a mosquito and contracted West Nile encephalitis. The operator was entitled to temporary total disability benefits.

What it means: In Louisiana, work-related insect bites or stings can be a compensable accident under the workers’ compensation law.

Summary: An assistant operator for Graphic Packaging International was sitting in the break room of the plant when he was bitten by a mosquito. Days later, he had fatigue and fever-related symptoms. He was eventually diagnosed with West Nile encephalitis. He filed a workers’ compensation claim. The Louisiana Court of Appeal held that he established a work-related accident.

The court found that the operator showed it was more probable than not that he was bitten on the job by a mosquito carrier of West Nile. The widespread outbreak of West Nile throughout the area and the summer conditions supporting the mosquito population demonstrated that the operator was exposed to other mosquitoes in the days before and after the accident. Also, the evidence and common sense established that the operator was exposed to mosquitoes away from work.

However, the operator’s time in the plant during the week before he experienced symptoms allowed for a conclusion that he was probably bitten during his 56 hours at work. Large doors to the plant were open allowing for exposure of mosquitoes to workers.

Also, the operator worked early in the morning and later in the afternoon, which were times that mosquitoes were the most active as confirmed by experts. The operator also pointed out that a coworker also contracted West Nile at work.

The court found that the operator was not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits before a proper evaluation of rehabilitation possibilities. The court found that he was temporarily totally disabled.

Christina Lumbreras is a Legal Editor for Workers' Compensation Report, a publication of our parent company, LRP Publications. She can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Lead Story

Improving the Claims Experience

Insureds and carriers agree that more communication can address common claims complaints.
By: | January 10, 2018 • 7 min read

Carriers today often argue that buying their insurance product is about much more than financial indemnity and peace of mind.


Many insurers include a variety of risk management services and resources in their packages to position themselves as true risk partners who help clients build resiliency and prevent losses in the first place.

That’s all well and good. No company wants to experience a loss, after all. But even with the added value of all those services, the core purpose of insurance is to reimburse loss, and policyholders pay premiums because they expect delivery on that promise.

At the end of the day, nothing else matters if your insurer can’t or won’t pay your claim, and the quality of the claims experience is ultimately the barometer by which insureds will judge their insurer.

Why, then, is the process not smoother? Insureds want more transparency and faster claims payment, but claims examiners are often overburdened and disconnected from the original policy. Where does the disconnect come from, and how can it be bridged?

Both sides of the insurer-insured equation may be responsible.

Susan Hiteshew, senior manager of global insurance and risk management, Under Armor Inc.

“One of the difficult things in our industry is that oftentimes insureds don’t call their insurer until they have a claim,” said Susan Hiteshew, senior manager of global insurance and risk management for Under Armour Inc.

“It’s important to leverage all of the other value that insurers offer through mid-term touchpoints and open communication. This can help build the insurer-insured partnership so that when a claim materializes, the relationships are already established and the claim can be resolved quickly and fairly.”

“My experience has been that claims executives are often in the background until there is an issue that needs addressing with the policyholder,” said Dan Holden, manager of corporate risk and insurance for Daimler Trucks North America.

“This is unfortunate because the claims department essentially writes the checks and they should certainly be involved in the day to day operations of the policyholders in designing polices that mitigate claims.

“By being in the shadows they often miss the opportunity to strengthen the relationship with policyholders.”

Communication Breakdown

Communication barriers may stem from internal separation between claims and underwriting teams. Prior to signing a contract and throughout a policy cycle, underwriters are often in contact with insureds to keep tabs on any changes in their risk profile and to help connect clients with risk engineering resources. Claims professionals are often left out of the loop, as if they have no proactive role to play in the insured-insurer relationship.

“Claims operates on their side of the house, ready to jump in, assist and manage when the loss occurs, and underwriting operates in their silo assessing the risk story,” Hiteshew said.
“Claims and underwriting need to be in lock-step to collectively provide maximum value to insureds, whether or not losses occur.”

Both insureds and claims professionals agree that most disputes could be solved faster or avoided completely if claims decision-makers interacted with policyholders early and often — not just when a loss occurs.

“Claims and underwriting need to be in lock-step to collectively provide maximum value to insureds, whether or not losses occur.” – Susan Hiteshew, senior manager of global insurance and risk management for Under Armour Inc.

“Communication is critically important and in my opinion, should take place prior to binding business and well before a claim comes in the door,” said David Crowe, senior vice president, claims, Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance.

“In my experience, the vast majority of disputes boil down to lack of communication and most disputes ultimately are resolved when the claim decision-maker gets involved directly.”

Talent and Resource Shortage

Another contributing factor to fractured communication could be claims adjuster workload and turnover. Claims adjusting is stressful work to begin with.


Adjusters normally deal with a high volume of cases, and each case can be emotionally draining. The customer on the other side is, after all, dealing with a loss and struggling to return to business as usual. At some TPAs, adjuster turnover can exceed 25 percent.

“This is a difficult time for claims organizations to find talent who want to be in this business long-term, and claims organizations need to invest in their employees if they’re going to have any success in retaining them,” said Patrick Walsh, executive vice president of York Risk Services Group.

The claims field — like the insurance industry as a whole — is also strained by a talent crunch. There may not be enough qualified candidates to take the place of examiners looking to retire in the next ten years.

“One of the biggest challenges facing the claims industry is a growing shortage of talent,” said Scott Rogers, president, National Accounts, Sedgwick. “This shortage is due to a combination of the number of claims professionals expected to retire in the coming years and an underdeveloped pipeline of talent in our marketplace.

“The lack of investment in ensuring a positive work environment, training, and technology for claims professionals is finally catching up to the industry.”

The pool of adjusters gets stretched even thinner in the aftermath of catastrophes — especially when a string of catastrophes occurs, as they did in the U.S in the third quarter of 2017.

“From an industry perspective, Harvey, Irma and Maria reminded us of the limitations on resources available when multiple catastrophes occur in close succession,” said Crowe.

“From independent and/or CAT adjusters to building consultants, restoration companies and contractors, resources became thin once Irma made landfall.”

Is Tech the Solution?

This is where Insurtech may help things. Automation of some processes could free up time for claims professionals, resulting in faster deployment of adjusters where they’re needed most and, ultimately, speedier claims payment.

“There is some really exciting work being done with artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies that could yield a meaningful ROI to both insureds and insurers,” Hiteshew said.

“The claim set-up process and coverage validation on some claims could be automated, which could allow adjusters to focus their work on more complex losses, expedite claim resolution and payment as well.”

Dan Holden, manager, Corporate Risk & Insurance, Daimler Trucks North America

Predictive modeling and analytics can also help claims examiners prioritize tasks and maximize productivity by flagging high-risk claims.

“We use our data to identify claims with the possibility of exceeding a specified high dollar amount in total incurred costs,” Rogers said. “If the model predicts that a claim will become a large loss, the claim is redirected to our complex claims unit. This allows us to focus appropriate resources that impact key areas like return to work.”

“York has implemented a number of models that are focused on helping the claims professional take action when it’s really required and that will have a positive impact on the claim experience,” Walsh said.

“We’ve implemented centers of excellence where our experts provide additional support and direction so claim professionals aren’t getting deluged with a bunch of predictive model alerts that they don’t understand.”

“Technology can certainly expedite the claims process, but that could also lead to even more cases being heaped on examiners.” — Dan Holden, manager, Corporate Risk & Insurance, Daimler Trucks North America

Many technology platforms focused on claims management include client portals meant to improve the customer experience by facilitating claim submission and communication with examiners.

“With convenient, easy-to-use applications, claimants can send important documents and photos to their claims professionals, thereby accelerating the claims process. They can designate their communication preferences, whether it’s email, text message, etc.,” Sedgwick’s Rogers said. “Additionally, rules can be established that direct workflow and send real time notifications when triggered by specific claim events.”

However, many in the industry don’t expect technology to revolutionize claims management any time soon, and are quick to point out its downsides. Those include even less personal interaction and deteriorating customer service.

While they acknowledge that Insurtech has the potential to simplify and speed up the claims workflow, they emphasize that insurance is a “people business” and the key to improving the claims process lies in better, more proactive communication and strengthening of the insurer-insured relationship.

Additionally, automation is often a double-edged sword in terms of making work easier for the claims examiner.

“Technology can certainly expedite the claims process, but that could also lead to even more cases being heaped on examiners,” Holden said.

“So while the intent is to make things more streamlined for claims staff, the byproduct is that management assumes that examiners can now handle more files. If management carries that assumption too far, you risk diminishing returns and examiner burnout.”


By further taking real people out of the equation and reducing personal interaction, Holden says technology also contributes to deteriorating customer service.

“When I started more than 30 years ago as a claims examiner, I asked a few of the seasoned examiners what they felt had changed since they began their own careers 30 year earlier. Their answer was unanimous: a decline in customer service,” Holden said.

“It fell to the wayside to be replaced by faster, more impersonal methodologies.”

Insurtech may improve customer satisfaction for simpler claims, allowing policyholders to upload images with the click of a button, automating claim valuation and fast-tracking payment. But for complex claims, where the value of an insurance policy really comes into play, tech may do more harm than good.

“Technology is an important tool and allows for more timely payment and processing of claims, but it is not THE answer,” BHSI’s Crowe said. “Behind all of the technology is people.” &

Katie Dwyer is an associate editor at Risk & Insurance®. She can be reached at [email protected]