400-lb. employee: Was injury due to weight or work?
October 11, 2010 by Fred HosierPosted in: new court decision, Special Report, Worker health, Workers' comp
PDF 
A doctor says an employee’s injury was due to turning or twisting at work. His employer says it was because the worker weighed more than 400 lbs. Did the employee get workers’ comp benefits?
Craig Schnipke worked for Safe Turf Installation Group. One day at work, Schnipke says he was turning and rotating to take a bag off a machine when his knee popped and he felt instant, severe pain.
Schnipke suffered a torn right medial meniscus which eventually required surgery.
His doctor said, based on Schnipke’s account and his own examination, the injury was caused at work.
Safe Turf says there was nothing about the work process that caused the injury. The company contends Schnipke was merely walking when he claims he felt the pain, therefore the injury was the result of his large size.
Schnipke was six-foot-eight and weighed more than 400 lbs.
The only testimony Safe Turf presented to back up its claim was from a doctor who never met or examined Schnipke. That doctor said he didn’t believe Schnipke’s work activities caused the knee injury and that his morbid obesity couldn’t be ruled out as a cause.
The jury entered a unanimous verdict in favor of Schnipke, saying he should receive workers’ comp benefits.
Safe Turf appealed the verdict, but an appeals court upheld it.
In its opinion, the appeals court wrote, “Granted, the weight that Schnipke put on his knee as he was turning was substantial, but employers must take their employees as they find them.”
What do you think about the court’s verdict? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
Schnipke v. Safe Turf, Court of Appeals of Ohio, No. 1-10-07, 9/7/10.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: knee injury, weighed 44 lbs., Workers' comp
Loading ...
October 11th, 2010 at 9:24 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by MSDSonline - Brad H, Safety News Alert. Safety News Alert said: 400-lb. employee: Was injury due to weight or work?: A doctor says an employee’s injury was due to turning or twis… http://bit.ly/9AyyKY [...]
October 12th, 2010 at 9:49 am
I agree with court decision. The employee was peforming his regular duties when he sustained his injury and therefore its a workers comp injury.
October 12th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Being a safety manager I feel for the company that they have to pay for an injury that most likely would not have occurred if the employee had been of a normal weight. However unless the employee got this heavy after they were hired then the company knew what they were getting when they hired them. It sounds like the employee did nothing out of the normal job duties. This is why it is vital that any company carefully evaluate the physical demands of the job duties and match that with employees that should be able to do the work without injury. A pre-employment physical, testing for all needed job functions is a must. Bottom line if you hire employees that are at physical risk of injury because of health then you have the buy the injuries.
Rick Briggs LSP
October 12th, 2010 at 10:01 am
I disagree- I think his weight had alot to do with it. If he would have been a fit man this incident would have never happened. If he has a heart attack at work cuz of his eating habits is that a work comp injury?
October 12th, 2010 at 10:13 am
I believe the company who hires the employee hires them at the time they do, thus taking them for what they are at the moment….NOW, I think there’d be a case against the jury decision had the employee put on substantial weight gain after he had already been hired…then his weight gain may be a cause for injury performing the duties he used to perform just fine when he weighed less…then one might wonder: am I not to gain weight after I get hired at a job?? This would lead to defaming one’s unalienable rights as an American. No employer can uphold the stand that their employees cannot gain weight…what if en employee gets pregnant?? So that goes back to the jury’s deduction that worker’s comp should be paid. And I agree - thank you.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:17 am
I believe the employer should be a little more descriminating when hiring personnell, when they know the total nature of their own business. More emphasis should be put on a pre-employmet medical screening, and the medical history of the candidate for a job.
In this case, and under the circumstances, I agree with the court, the injury was sustained while the employee was on the job.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:18 am
The employer was stupid for not having the man examined by the company’s doctor. They left themselves open on this one.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Unfortunately, the courts ruled correctly on this case. Workers’ Compensation is insurance for the worker and the employee and unless the injury was an intentional self inflicted wound the injury must be covered. Some states do make allowances for a slow healing process brought on by pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, arthritis, etc. This 6’ 8” 400 + person would be a likely candidate for diabetes, arthritis, hypertension, and a host of other conditions and be classified as morbidly obese. Furthermore, obese people are more susceptible to on the job injuries, absenteeism, diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, myocardial infarction, pulmonary issues, and a host of other conditions.
We are really placed between a rock and a hard place when dealing with people whose conditions are protected by the ADA. Yes obesity is protected by the ADA. So, when denying employment or terminating employment you must be creative and cite reasons in their job description that disqualifies them from employment. You must accurately identify the day to day tasks that the worker must perform. This includes everything that you might take for granted such as being able to ascend and descend ladders or stairs; wear protective clothing; maneuver through narrow pathways; occupy a seat if a conventional semi-tractor; etc. The ADA basically says that the employer must do everything reasonable to accommodate the disabled. The word “reasonable” is very subjective so extreme caution must be used in your defense. Unreasonable could include high cost, equipment availability, etc.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Jolene: A heart attack is a disease and not an injury and is rarely considered or eligable for Workers’ Compensation.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:52 am
I’ll have to agree with this judgment. However, I am not sure if this is a victory for the workforce. As the judge points out, “employers must deal with employees and they find them”. This could be a veiled reminder that HR should screen out the morbidly obese.
It will require further interpretation as to whether morbid obesity is a disease, a lifestyle or a disability. Employers must consider the disabled. However the interview process is not exempt from high risk considerations or even concerns for corporate image. It would be noble for a alcoholic to admit his disease during an interview, but reality states that they seldom do. Morbid obesity, on the other hand, cannot be concealed.
I am not a lawyer or judge, but I think that this issue will be in the spotlight for many years to come. There simply is no right or wrong.
October 12th, 2010 at 11:09 am
I agree with the court’s decision.
The employer would have to prove the injury was related to a pre-existing medical condition that was not brought on by the work environment or duties. I am a Safety Manager and HR Assistant as well and we’ve had employees trip going up and down the stairs, not carrying anything but just walking to another department. I also had an employee twist their ankle because they “landed on it wrong” while walking on a level surface that was completely clear of hazards and not carrying anything that could have contributed to the event. Basically, people are clumsy and if they’re clumsy at work - they’re covered. I also had an employee sprain their elbow while being on the job for only 2 months and the employee’s doctor, along with the independent medical examination (IME) doctor concluded that the injury was related to a degenerative personal medical condition and not a muscular disorder that was a result of the work duties because she only worked for us for 2 months and that wasn’t long even for her condition to develop. However, we were found to liable because the work duties did cause a temporary aggravation.
Like I said, I’m also HR and Rick is absolutely right. Making sure people are physically fit to perform the duties of the job is crucial. You have to at least annually review the job and make sure the duties and physical demands are up to date. A great way to combat high work comp costs as well as high health insurance costs is through company wellness programs that are geared towards helping employees (and their families! - think about it, people are a product of their environment) make better lifestyle choices (eating right, not smoking, drinking less, exercising, etc.). If you don’t spend the money there, you’ll be spending it down the road and it WILL be more costly!
Jolene - The heart attack in your scenerio would not be considered work-related because personal consumption or preparation (eating, drinking and/or smoking) is not covered by OSHA whether it was brought in or bought on premise. Check out page 10 of OSHA 1910 manual. However, if the employee falls over and hits their head on an object before the floor, then there would be a compensible claim. Basically, the heart attack would likely be considered the cause of personal health problems not work related unless the environment was the contributing factor. For instance, if an employee is working on the production line and the inside temp is 87 degrees and they’re performing heavy work for hours and then they drop then yeah they’d be covered.
October 12th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Court decision was correct. Workers comp insurance covers all injuries that occur while employee is in the course of employment, regardless of any potential negligence on insured’s behalf, as long as injury was not intentional. I also feel for the employer, because I think it was the employee’s obesity that caused the injury. A pre-employment physical and assessment of the physical job duties is the only way to go in the future. Employees who are obese are a clear liability to employers, whether the job is physical or not.
October 12th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Agree with court decision
October 12th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Isn’t it illegal to discriminate against and therefore not hire someone only based on their medical conditions? According to our attorneys, it is. Therefore, the company is stuck between a rock and a hard place. You have to hire someone as they are. Then you have to pay the medical bills when their body starts falling apart. Considering this man’s weight, his knee could have gone out at any time, whether he was at work or just at home walking to the kitchen. The laws need to change so that businesses are not held responsible for an injury that is due to the worker’s weight.
October 12th, 2010 at 11:29 am
So for all those knee injuries that occur on the job site in similar instances to people that are not obese…will they now not be covered? You can’t assume that any illness is directly related to weight. My husband is 6’4″, weighs 195, has never been obese and is a type II diabetic and has had other issues that in an obese person would automatically be attributed to weight. I know many people who are technically classified as obese that are far fitter than I am. I am not saying that weight doesn’t play a role in some cases, but you can’t just jump to that conclusion without proof.
October 12th, 2010 at 11:32 am
I to am a safety professional and it seems to me that the company was in fact lacking in their screening process. The employer has a responsibility to ensure that the employee is physically fit to perform the duties that will be assigned them. A 400+ pound individual should not be assigned duties where he/she will be twisitng and turning. Joints of the body are predisposed for injury when duties include twisting and turning and when the additional stress of extreme weight are placed on the joints the potential increases greatly. While I have empathy for the company in this case I do agree with the ruling of the courts. I can however understand why the company would have been hesitant to say that the individual was not fit to perform the duties that the job required because of potential discrimination liability. A company has to walk a fine line between protecting themselves and discrimaination because of laws like ADA. A thorough job description and reasonable prerequisites of employment could have protected this company.
October 12th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Why is everyone so sure this accident would not have happened if he was a normal weight? The fact that he was turning and rotating while lifting the bag tells me that it was a case of improper lifting, which could cause injury to any employee, regardless of their weight.
October 12th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Totally disagree with the judgement. If the employee was jsut walking and not carring anything his own physcial condition is the root cause of this injury.
October 12th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
With the right (or wrong) leverage a 95# person can sustain this injury. The torque on the knee was caused by improper movement. The company should have provided training in proper technique and movement to perform the work. The employee also should have taken responsibility to understand the proper way to lift and carry. The court is right in that it happened at work but I believe the weight issue in this case was an excuse and a distraction.
October 12th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Given the evidence provided, the judgement was correct. Worker’s Compensation as it stands is quite lenient on what is required for the claim to be considered as compensable. I would like to know what, if any difference it would have made if the company had requested the doctor to personally examine the worker. Sadly, I doubt the outcome would have been different.
These programs were intended to protect workers from harm by corporations who put profit before safety. It is unfortunate that the protection extends so far as to disallow any culpability the employee has in increasing the risk for injury, short of the previously mentioned self-inflicted wounds. I just don’t know how it would be possible to fairly administer a system that assigned partial responsibility to the employee for situations like the one presented.
October 12th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I had an employee who was in great physical condition who unfortunately received the same injury. Even though I feel for the company in reguards to the weight of the employee, this type of injury occured from the physical action of twisting the knee. During our investigation we called in a physical Therapist expert, who helped determine that the twisting action of the knee when the foot is firmly planted on the ground is what caused this type of incident. The weight of the employee may have added to the situation, but the action is what created the problem. When it comes to ergonomics and repetive task injuries it is very difficult some times to accept a case…. Its kind of like Carpal tunnel, it could be an injury years in the making, but you are the lucky employer who gets to claim it.
October 12th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
At no point was it discussed if the job was ever reviewed for ergonomics or lifiting. Lifting and turning are both actions that should be looked at as potential injury situations. If some efforts had been done to mitigate these risks there potentially could have been a more favorable solution for the company.
October 12th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
I also agree with the courts on this one. An MCL (or ACL) tear can happen to a 170 lb. worker that makes a lateral twist without pivoting the foot. Like a back a back injury, an incorrect movement can injure an employee regardless of their size.
I’m making an assumtion here, but considering the type of business involved, the employer likely thought a tall, strong man would be a benefit to the company. There was a definite risk weighing the benefits of this type of worker vs. possible medical conditions. It was a gamble in which both parties lost.
October 12th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Sure sounds like a lot of discrimination against this large person. I am pretty sure you cannot hire based on medical condition or physical size. If it was me, and I was denied employment based on m y size, I would be all over that, along with my attorney. The court made the right decision. I have skinny workers who have done the same thing to their knees.
October 12th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Really the evidence presented is lacking to make a detailed argument but from what I did read, the worker was only turning to pick up a bag. The general rule is that it may not be compensible if the injury involves signs and symptoms that surface at work but result SOLELY from a non-work related event or exposure outside of work. The employer would have to prove that the obesity was a sole contributor to the injury and since the worker was stepping to pick up a bag, presumably as part of the function he was being hired for - the sole determination is difficult to overcome. Further, disputing the likely follow-up cumulative trauma claim if the original claim was denied would be next to impossible.
Even if the employer had a better doctor, rationale, history of MVA or prior injury, sudden weight gain, degeneration present in both knees, other disease processes etc., they would likely still lose their argument. Perhaps they might defray costs through apportionment but it would still be compensible.
As for the question of weight - anyone saying that the employer was negligent in not screening or otherwise and that the worker should not have been hired because of his weight, to me is just discriminatory. (not that it matters, but I am a fit, healthy guy with BMI well below 25) Certainly there are some increased risks but generalizations and stereotyping do little and many of our hardest working and safe employees are overweight. Screening has its value for sure but has many of it’s own issues. I agree there may be increased risk for certain types of positions/roles in a company for those morbid obese, but there are similar if not equal risks for those who are not and a prudent employer needs to evaluate all those risks. Take it from someone who had a fit, healthy, young worker hurt his back while walking across the parking lot from his car to work that the wind seemed to cause.
Discussing heart attacks, these can be automatically compensible if for example you are a police officer, fire fighter etc. despite a fried chicken, donut and coffee diet for example. Similarly other common illnesses may also be depending on the circumstances (except common cold or flu). Does it suck to be the recipient of these types of claims? Certainly. Perhaps more focus on employee wellness programs may also be warranted.
October 12th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
This is why I advise my clients to pay $$ for all new hires and get them “thoroughly” medically screened. Make sure it’s all on record as to what issues or impairments they may be bringing to work with them. If they smoke, then they should be counseled in writing about the negatives health effects. If they abuse alcohol, they again they should be counseled accordingly. If they are obese, then they should be screened even more, and possibly not even hired. The proof is in the pudding. Employees who live physically abusive lifestyles cost more money than those who don’t. They are far more prone to illnesses, injuries, and they’re out more days than others. Also, those who are overweight usually exceed PPE and other weight capacities, i.e. Fall Arrest Gear, Ladders, etc., thus the smaller more fit workers get picked to do the harder jobs.
Being that the Doc didn’t even interview the man, I’d say no I do not agree with this outcome! And we wonder why insurance cost are going through the roof? Hello, this ain’t rocket science here.
October 12th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Though it may be correct from a legal standpoint it would appear that the employee could have just as easily injured himself while in his own home. It is unfortunate from the company standpoint but we do live in a litigious society now. It would appear to me that he used an improper lifting technique (rotating and twisting) while removing the bag from the machine. That is what I would have tried to show in the trial. But, I’m not an attorney. If you say they should not have hired someone of his size, they get sued for discrimination. If they hire them and they use improper lifting techniques and injure themselves, the company gets sued. Sometime in the last 40 or so years we stopped being responsible for our own actions. I guess this is the burden we as safety professionals must contend with in this day and age.
October 13th, 2010 at 7:47 am
The decision was correct. Overweight or not, the exact same injury could have occurred given the “twisting” motion to anyone. I am very familiar with knee injuries as I have had the same experience and have lived with it now for over 20 years. While this person’s weight may have been a contributing factor in this injury, a person weighing 130 pounds can, and sometimes do, sustain the same type of injury given the twisting nature of the movement while unloading a bag of material.
Worker’s Compensation insurance is not in place to protect employees. Worker’s Compensation insurance protects the EMPLOYER from being sued by an employee. The jury panel was correct in awarding this employee coverage by worker’s compensation insurance.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:57 am
It seems the court got it right. There is no exclusion for a persons weight, nor very little wiggle room for a company in most medical situations which occur at work. What I would like to know is what the employee was doing during the time just before his noticing the injury…was he working on hands and knees, was he lifting heavy objects? Many time’s the actual symptoms only appear after the muscles expand and contract, after an employee leaves work, etc. The employees weight should not be considered - he is an employee, period. You hire them - they are your responsibility. I would also like to see what the company is doing to motivate workers to become fit, i.e., wellness program, etc. If an employee is in unfit condition to work, there are methods to evaluate him/her, by being proactive. If an employee is exhibiting signs of not being able to perform their job safely - there are channels to go through to determine their fitness for work…the company did not see the weight as a problem until the injury occurred.
October 13th, 2010 at 9:08 am
There is no difference between someone who is morbibly obese and someone who has slower motor skills and is therefore considered “clumsy.” If the employee can physically perform the duties of the job (which can really only be determined once the employee has been on the job for a few weeks), and the employee was in the midst of performing his required duties, then his weight can not be considered the cause of the injury. However, while I agree that his weight may have exasperated the injury, it was an injury none the less presumably caused by a function of his job. On the flip side, employers who feel that weight is a concern for more physical job functions, the employer must provide education and wellness programs to motivate their workforce to obtain a healthy lifestyle (including but not limited to weight) There are risks for many types of lifestyle choices, including those who are underweight or binge eaters, but no one ever mentions those because it isn’t an “outside” symptom. So until the employer steps in and wants to proactively show concern for all employees and their individual lives and implement an overall wellness program that addresses all lifestle choices as well as issue consequences for those who do not participate, there can not be a double standard for those who are obese because they have injured themselves while performing their job duties.
October 13th, 2010 at 9:24 am
The ruling on this is twisted and here is why I think so. I believe when a company is held accountable for the cost of an injury there should be some way that the company could have prevented it. What could the company have done to prevent this? Nothing….We are getting so close in this country to providing free health-care at the expense of Workers Compensation. Did this man have a condition that was pre existing? How long was he on this job before he had a problem? He might have started the job the same day of injury. Here is where were headed. Need a knee replacement? Get the first job you can and twist at the waist then file a claim. Come on this is crazy.
October 13th, 2010 at 9:27 am
I agree with the decision. Like someone said, not hiring this person is an ADA violation if it is because of the weight. Why not hire him and have programs in place to help him deal with the weight issue. He knows he’s overweight. Have the Occupational Health Nurse institute programs dealing with better eating and have activity programs for workers. These things work! But, I forgot, most employees don’t have OHNs. Maybe that needs to be remedied.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Several years ago I bent over to pick up a fairly light box, about ten lbs. and for some reason my back just “went out”. I was not over weight nor did I ever have any previous back problems. Because I was at work and on the clock, it was considered a work comp. claim. This persons weight may have been a factor but it is my understanding no matter what happens, unless it is proven that the employee was negligent, if an employee is injured at work, no matter what the injury, it is a workers comp. claim
October 13th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Here we go again. The buzz word of the month is obesity so let’s discriminate against anyone who is not the size 0 model in a retouched magazine. I guess everyone will have to put up with this buzz word for a while until the judgmental sheep find something else to go after a group of people for, funny how these bigots seem to find a way to exclude themselves from the prejudice of the day. I wish they would all go crawl under a rock so society can get away from hating and discrimination.
This verdict was right on. The worker was hurt at work and should be compensated.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:07 am
True, he was overweight, but that doesn’t automaticly make his weight the cause of his injury. Companies almost always try to place fault on the person. It’s all about the $$$$$$$s.
In saying that, I don’t believe it’s always the company’s fault.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:12 am
They never should have hired him, if he wasn’t fit for duty.
Now, if he gained the weight during his employment, then the employer should have changed his duties as he ‘grew’.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:13 am
It’s so easy to say that the company should hire a nurse and implement a program for the employees to get fit, but come on, people. That costs money. Many businesses are struggling just to keep their doors open, much less trying to get safety directors, nurses, incentive programs, etc. Put yourself in the place of the guy that has to try to run the company, keep his prices low enough to keep his customers, and make enough money to make payroll, repair broken machines, etc. Now he has to invest in a health and wellness program because the laws don’t protect him from irresponsible people??? It’s easy to point fingers at the company if you’ve never tried to run your own business.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:20 am
This brings up and interesting point. If the man was not hired due to obesity would it be discrimination? The court said you must take them as you find them. we had an incident where a man belly was so big he could not see his feet and tripped and received compensation. I believe you can’t have it both ways. Take them as you find them and then discriminate when you weed potential problems out.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:53 am
UNBELIEVABLE! You have got to be kidding me you pathetic jurors! The guy was grossly OVER WEIGHT!
How about all of you with the “kid’s gloves” on TAKE EM OFF for once and start holding employees accounatable for their poor decisions and behavior! HE”S FAT AND OBESE!!! So why should his employer pay for his lack of personal care?
If was an employer, I would discriminate when it comes to very obese applicants; it happens everyday of the week and in this case it’s very good business sense. Sure it would be prejudice and the word means pre-judge as you know. So yes, I am going to pre-judge an applicant that is as robust as this guy. So answer me this; why would an employer want to take on a person who is an extremely high risk when they could employ a person that is a low risk if they are EQUALLY qualified? No brainer to me and common sense “should” prevail.
I’m sorry, but if you don’t take care of yourself, and contribute to the perpetual cost of health care in the US, then I don’t feel the least bit sorry for you. I am tired of paying for other peoples lack of reasonable judgement and poor decisions.
Employers feel the same; thats why most small business’s cannot afford to pay for health benefit packages for workers. IF you’re not fit for the job, don’t get upset and complain when you don’t get hired. You don’t have to be Calista Flockhart, but don’t expect employers to hire ya when you are a giant risk to their buisness and livlihood.
Bottom line for me, him being fat was the sole contibuting factor as to the root-cause of his injury. Ask yourself the (5) why’s and his obesity is the genesis.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Weight discrimination or profiling due to ones physical situation is an unfair practice. A sumo wrestler, a pro football athlete could be visually seen as overweight if they were not given a specific job title yet they are probably in better condition than those spewing their opinions here.
The first criteria is that the prospective employee must not be a hazard to there-self and expect the employer to be responsible to their condition.
However, an employer can protect themselves by creating hiring parameters; by having physical fitness performance test to define ones work skill, physical dexterity, and any other performance test for a specific job requirement or general labor. A good labor lawyer/advisor should be able to define the legal context of these tests as with the assistance of a physical trainer/therapist/analyst.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
The discussion about an employee’s physical condition raises interesting questions. Every one changes over time, maybe heavier, definitely slower etc. so how would you deal with a staff comprised of many long term employees? These employees were more than fit when they were hired; however some ten to fifteen years have taken a toll on some. Do we fire them because they are older, heavier or slower? A discrimination law suit would surely follow. As to the injury, a pivot or twist can do huge damage to a knee regardless of the perosn’s weight.
October 13th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Folks we’ve gotten off track. The question originally asked if the injured worker is due Workers’s Compensation.
This whole thing about hiring and retaining people can be handled by a thoroughly written Job Description and then following it consistantly. If the Job Description states that the person must be able to for example “stand for long periods of time” and the individual can no longer do this he/she is no longer physically qualified for the job. The best method is to require every individual to pass (as a condition of employment) a physical examination which requires the person to have the normal medical requirements (i.e. BP, cardio, etc.) performance of specific tasks (stooping, climbing, lifting, walking, etc.), as an added requirement a Cardio Pulmonary Test should also be considered, and lastly if the physician determines that the individual is a candidate for sleep apnea, require the individual to be tested.
October 13th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
It is cases like this that make HR people want to discriminate. Unfortunately I agree with Paul…. it is very unfortunate but people should be accountable for their choices. If my choice is to get to a 400 pound weight I should not expect my employer to pay for injuries that are obviously caused because of the weight and also have increase on health insurance rates etc…. More absentism, more diseases etc… Obesity is really a problem not only for the person… and I really feel for them… but also for the rest of us.
October 13th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
When are we as a society going to start accepting responsibility for our own actions and stop blaming everybody (employers) else for our own short comings? Every step this fellow takes produces an enormous amount of stress and wear on his knees and hips, it was inevitable that he would eventually blow-out a joint, sadly it just happen to occur at work. Look at the statistics for knee and hip replacement surgeries, who dominates the field of patients uhm, uhm … the obese? You got it.
All of the bleeding hearts want to side with the employee in case like this because the employers pockets are perceived to be deeper. Wake-up and smell the coffee people our jobs are leaving this country in part to dumb A%$ jury decisions like this.
Oh yeah his “Doctor” said his injury was caused by his work, what else would you expect him to say, the doc has to make his JAG payment somehow.
October 13th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
To all of you who want to blame his injury on his weight: What would you be blaming it on if it happened to a 170 pound fit individual? How many times do you need to be told that that type of injury can happen to anyone, regardless of weight? And yes it could happen anywhere, but it didn’t. It happened at work. Same thing could have happened to the 170 pound individual and it could have happened at home or work!
October 13th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Texas Glen,
I’m not siding with this guy, but what would you do if it was you and you got injuried while working? Would you take not having any income to house you and your family, or would you file for workman’s comp? When it comes to feeding our family, most of us would file for comp if there was no other income or way to survive.
Again, it comes down to $$$$$$s, whether it’s the employee or employer.
October 13th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Sandra,
“The rest of us?” You mean that fat people don’t belong in your society? What is “the rest of us?” Why don’t we just do away with all the fat people. While we are at it, let’s do away with old people. They are a drain on “the rest of us” also. How about your Grandparents? I bet your grandparents are a drain on “the rest of us” too. Or how about people with cancer? They are a drain on “the rest of us” also.
See what I’m going here? Unfortunately, we as a society have evolved into this mind set, like we are special and ugly, fat, old, colored, not colored, etc. etc. are not as good as we are. BS! The sooner we get out of this way of thinking, the sooner we’ll all be able to live together. If that is even remotely possible.
October 13th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Everyone is part of my society as you call it… unfortunately myself included this society is full of people who do not seem to be able to take responsibility for our actions because the law is making that pretty easy. Getting old is part of a natural process, so is having a cold etc… If I am at work and have an accident it is part of workers comp and I understand that but I would never sue a company so they can pay for a cirgury that is required due to my lack of judgment and my decisions in life…. I think the laws are promoting our irresponsible behavior and I see it more and more with young people who are always blamming someone else for their actions. If my cancer is a consequence of spending hours getting a tan under the wonderful power of the sun I will say that I also do not have to make other responsible for that or for my cholesterol level or for having an accident because I was driving drunk or needing life long therapy because of all the drugs I have used…. Should there be help for that… OF COURSE…. but not taking responsibility for my life is just no acceptable and making companies pay for my mistakes is not either. Now living together with people who can never take control of their lives is not good, healthy or even sane….. Fortunately, as I have read through this comments there are plently of people who believe in personal responsibility… That is of course not to say that I never drink or I exercice every day… etc. But I beileve in taking control and responsibility for my own life and the outcome of my decisions. And when I mess up I know that I have to get up, cry all I have to cry but make it better again and again… Not stay in a dark room feeling misarable because the world is such a bad place and there is so much discrimination, etc… Now survive…. Work and survive! You are overweight… loose the weight… You are a drunk…. find a good church and a good program and stop drinking…. But do not drain the system for your shortcommings.
October 13th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
OMG! It’s very obvious that some of you will NEVER doff the layers of kid gloves you have on and will continue to show pity on people that are responsible for their poor physical condition. Some of you want to move your point by playing the “what if” game. For the love of God, stick to the facts and info we have here, not some other concockted hypothetical.
And BS, I don’t have to take them as I find them! Please show me the law, and not some whacked out interpretation by some rookie attorney, that states that I cannot discrimate based upon weight if the employee cannot meet my the physical requirements of the job as outlined in a job description.
OBVIOUSLY, this type of injury does happen to physicaly fit people; thanks for the reminder, however this guy was not! So therefore, for you to think that his fatness didn’t contibute to his injury, or was the leading contributing factor is not anything other than irrational.
TXBIGFOOT: I hardly think that this ladie, Sandra, wants to do away with fat people; be rational and try not to take it to the extreme. And yes, “the rest of us” are the people that DO end up paying for ridiculous claims that are the result of POOR CHOICES and decisions.
CHUCK C: Not to split hairs, but your statement, ” Folks we’ve gotten off track. The question originally asked if the injured worker is due Workers’s Compensation”, is not correct. This is the title of the article and not the question directed at us.
The question directed at us is “What do you think about the court’s verdict? Let us know in the Comments Box below” as stated in the last sentence.
Let’s stop the perpetual ridiculous claims train, stop the pandering, and start holding the workers accountable when they are at fault!
October 13th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
This subject has obviously touched some nerves. I understand not everyone can control their weight issues due to genetics, medical circumstances, etc. But I work in an industry that has seen the size of our products increase because the end user’s average weight has gone up over the past few decades. This is a trend that hasn’t seen it’s zenith yet, because you now see pre-school children who are morbidly obese far more often than you used to.
Yes, the type of injury described here can happen to any weight range. But is it unreal to perceive additional stresses due to the extra weight a FOUR HUNDRED POUND individual is carrying compared to a 170 pound individual? Studies are needed to say this emphatically, but I can theorize that there is an increased risk of injury.
We look at other factors that lead to increased risk when talking about safety, such as driving records and the types of infractions that led to violations. Why should weight be taboo? No, I’m not saying we need food police to give you a ticket everytime a snack food is consumed. And I’m not saying discriminate, I’m saying look at the root causes (plural). Ergonomics is one, but so is weight in my opinion. Hypothetically, a company can restrict a worker from carrying any object over 50 pounds in the name of safety, but the extra 80 pounds around their midsection is off limits to talk about? Anyone ever talked to a woman who has had breast reduction surgery because of chronic back pain? Now tell me weight isn’t a risk factor.
I would guess the employee in question did not want to be injured. But what is his incentive to make personal choices that reduce the risk of being injured? Wellness programs could provide some benefit. The cost of such a program may be at least partially offset by the decreased costs of health care due to healthier lifestyles. Ask a diabetic what their medical expenses are per month. No, not all diabetics are overweight. But weight is a risk factor for Type II diabetes.
The reality is that even if this was declared not a Work Comp claim, the injured would possibly still have an insurance claim, which they only pay a share of the overall expenses. The rest of the costs are distributed to everyone else in the insurance pool, namely you and me. And that is a burden we will continue to share until it boils over in a political showdown. Judging from the comments, we’re already at a simmer.
October 14th, 2010 at 9:45 am
The thing of it is “IT HAPPENED AT WORK” No matter the employee’s size “IT HAPPENED AT WORK”. The company will suffer DISCRIMINATION charges if they say that it was due to his size. Pay a little now or a lot later!
October 14th, 2010 at 11:41 am
In the situation like the one being discussed here, I think there should be some type of compromise between the individual’s health insurance provider and WC. Being overweight and the resulting stress the excess weight puts on joints makes it a chronic condition. The injury was most likely the by-product of years of being overweight.
Yes, it happened at work but that does not mean the work is the sole cause. I think WC and health insurance should split this at least 50/50, if not more like 75/25 with the individuals health insurance footing most of the bill.
October 14th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
TERRELL:
The company WILL NOT and obviously did not suffer discrimantion charges. They, the company, and even a doctor told the court that this guy’s MORBID OBESSITY couldn’t be ruled out.
Also, the company said he felt the pain when ‘he was walking”. His doctor, conveniently said it occured when he was “turning and twisting. Just because he was walking “at work”, does not mean he should be awarded a comp claim for the love of God. Sure he can start the claim, but that doesn’t mean he will be awarded the claim.
Maybe I am ignorant and clueless, but what law directs me, the business owner, that I cannot discriminate against people that are morbidly obese and are a giant risk to me and themselves? With that said, do you see any morbidly waitresses at Hooters or any morbidly obese people that work at health clubs? The answer is only obvious…
Bottom line for me is that this guy was morbidly obese, was “walking” when he felt the pain, and the root cause is his obesity and should not be awared a penny for his WC claim.
Stop gaining the weight and the ilness’s and injuries will drop…
October 14th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
As an employment Attorney and HR Director, I am seriously concerned about some of the comments on here..but non the less, I agree with the courts decision. It is very difficult to prove that a torn meniscus happened because of a person being over weight, it is normally torn through some sort of physical activity or trauma; therefore I agree that the employee is entitled to his Workers Comp. Also from personal experience I tore my meniscus from simply turning and reaching for something and I am no where near being overweight.
October 14th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Paul, “The rest of us,” does single out overweight people. Get real! How many people that are singling this dude out for being overweigh smoke, the second leading cause of health issues in the United States. And that was only declared in the past few years.
I’m not taking up for this guy, I’m just saying he is no different than the rest of us, who, at any given time could become a burden to “the rest of us.”
Truth being, regardless of his size, the incident happened at work, and unfortunately, most of the time the company pays. Whether this is right or wrong can be debated until hell freezes over, and it probably will be.
October 14th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I agree with the appellate court’s decision. Bottom line: It happened while on the job and it was in the course of normal funtions of the job. I’m not saying that his weight didn’t have something to do with his injury. In this case, and it cannot be proven otherwise, his injury was sustained while performing a task that is typical in his job function…..it was just an unfortunate accident. Being one that has gone through 5 knee surgeries myself, and being a fairly fit individual, injuries (especially knee injuries) do not discriminate….they affect any and all shapes and sizes. Now, I don’t recall if the employee’s age was mentioned? This too can be a factor in the overall health of his joints, just like his weight can, but no one has mentioned that as a possible reason for his injury. That could be opening up a whole other can of worms. I think they need to just suck it up and take the worker’s comp hit.
October 14th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
txbigigfoot…
Oh I am real and I am blunt and I don’t pander to the one’s that drain the system and intentionly leeach off of society. (Not saying this guy is.) Therefore, so what if it’s “singling him and morbidly obese people” out. If that’s hurting someone’s feelings then so be it…And yes, you are correct and I do agree that anyone of us “could” burden society at anytime; but, that is not the case here and not article is not about “us”.
Yes, HE is different than the folks that are not morbidily obese just like smokers are different that people that don’t smoke; not rocket science and it doesn’t take a soup bowl after your name to figure that one out.
Thanks folks; I’ll get off my soapbox. Good learning by having a good discussion forum like these. I know I sound blunt and direct at times, but I enjoy and respect hearing others views regardless of wether we agree and I learn from each and everyone!
October 14th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
txbigfoot…
I think we all can see and agree that in reality and because of the way things have been set up he is due workers comp… I guess most of us are expressing our dissapointment in a system that allows that. If intentionally or unententionally some people get singled out then there is a reason for that. However, maybe there is a chance that one person who has some power to make decisions can read this postings and do something about the way things are. I applaud any attempt to fight for people’s rights and to make sure that employers have safe environments and there is not discrimination or harassement.. That is whay my job is all about but the way things are right now make it very difficult to be unviased. When you know that an employee can have more risk of injuries not to mention the insurance rates, absentism, etc… why will you take the chance with someone like that when there are candidates just as qualified but do not represent that risk? If we want to be in a society without discrimination etc… then we have to make sure all of our systems are simply fair to everyone not jus the employees or the employers. Right now that is not the case and as an employee who represent my employer (who needs to make money otherwise where are the 500+ people we employee work) I resent decisions like this that are legal but not right.
October 15th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Interesting how the man’s size didn’t prohibit the company from hiring him in the first place, but as soon as he is injured it becomes an issue. If the man’s weight was appropriate for his height, not sure what that is for 6′ 8″, I’m sure this company would be looking for another excuse to deny workman’s comp. Worker’s comp is part of the cost of doing buisness. Injuries happen to thin people also. Yes even knee injuries. If a company is willing to hire an individual whithout regard to his large size then they should not see it as an issue when they are injured. Their posturing on this is legal grounds for a lawsuit that they will surely loose. However I’m betting they would continuously appeal it until the cost of settlement would be eclipsed by legal fees. America-what a country! No wonder why worker’s comp is required by law. Yes fraud exists and vigilant monitoring is needed, but denying our legal responsibilities to people because we value money more than the cost of doing the right thig is shamefull. The fact that this is even posted here shows how in spite of being a country that supposedly values human rights and is determined to fight prejudice, if we can invoke the right prejudice then we can protect our truest value - corporate facism, the one the world sees when we preach democracy. By the way Sandra you wouldn’t know right from wrong if suddenly you found yourself, by no fault of your own, in a situation that might cost your employer. If your company is so impoverished that they can’t afford the cost of doing business (i.e. worker’s comp), I suggest you look for a more stable job. Or perhaps as I suspect, this is a prejudice you can justify by the fear you have for your own provision. We all have our prejudices to deal with-mine is ignorance!
October 15th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
I agree with the court ruling. This type of injury can happen any time with out warning. My daughter, who by the way is in a normal weight range for her height and age(19), had this injury a few summers back while playing rugby. She was not hit, as matter of fact, there were no players in her direct contact with her. She was just turning to run the other direction on the field.
I do believe that his weight should have never been an issue. I applaud the 400+ individual for working in the first place. So many are sitting home on public assistance and getting bigger. I was once a 400+ person and yes things just happen, but as much as the employer might not want to hear it, suck it up, it happened at work. I am sure we have all had our WC claims that were so stupid that you wish you could slap the employee up side the head and ask what the heck were you thinking? I had one were the employee slamed his finger in the door. I really had a hard time not calling him an idiot.
October 15th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
It is obivious that most of you are not overweight. There are various reasons for being overweight and some of them have to do with other inheareted conditions that have nothing to do with how a person eats.
With that said, one must look at what the employee was doing. The employee was taking a heavy bag off of a machine and placing it somewhere else causing him (fit or unfit) to turn. Was this employee doing this constantly or was this a one time act? How did the employee turn? Did he twist or did he move his feet in turning? He should move his whole body to turn and place the bag elsewhere. Did you all forget about root cause?
October 15th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Some interesting comments. Personally, I would say that there is not enough information in the article to clearly decide whether or not the company is responsible. After reading through the statements of everyone (took a while), there are obviously several factors that need to be considered.
Those factors will influence the outcome of the decision. Not that any one of them would alleviate the company from responsibility or vice versa, but might help in preventing a recurrence. I’m guessing that the deciding body did have all the facts, and they probably made the correct decision based on them. That doesn’t mean that every 400lbs. man that hurts his knee at work has a work related injury. It’s that kind of blanket assumption that spreads through the safety profession that is not constructive.
From personal experience, there was a claim similar to this that might influence some people’s opinions.
Case: an older (50′s) pipe fitter claimed that he tripped over a piece of scaffolding that was sticking out. It hit him about 2 inches above his ankle and he went to the ground on one knee. He made a claim and after an MRI the doctors decided he needed surgery to repair damaged tissue in the knee that hit the ground. The employee had been at the construction site for about 2 years. During the surgery the doctor noted that there was no way the damage done to the knee was done in the manor in which the fitter explained it was or in the time frame that it was supposed to happen (I’m not a doctor so I can’t intelligently explain the extent of the injury). So while the fitter claimed that it was work related and we initially accepted his claim, it was later denied after further review and exam.
The damage to his knee was not and could not be discovered in a pre-employment health screen without an invasive surgery to scope his knee. However, through diligence and communication with the health care provider, we did not have to pay the claim. So I can’t readily agree with the folks who claim that you inherit all of an employee’s health problems when you hire them. In Washington, workers comp covers things that happen at work as a result of work. In the end, it is and should be dealt with on a case by case basis.
On another note, I find it amusing that so many people make so many assumptions about the situation since there is not enough detail about what happened. Even down to the facts that the guy has a family or owns a home and uses his money for that. This thread is really an exercise of how the human mind works. For instance, big foot sightings. People may catch a glimpse of a kid walking through the woods in a gorilla outfit filming a video for school and because they don’t see all the details/facts, their brains start to fill in gaps in what was going on. People rarely just say “I saw something walking through the forest. Probably a guy in a guerrilla suit.” It is usually “I saw Big foot!!”
Why is that important? Next time you are interviewing someone for an injury or accident report, see if you can find how many times they go back and forth between exactly what they saw and how they interpreted it to form an opinion.
October 18th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Sounds to me like that company won’t be hiring any more heavy people and they’ve solved there problem. It is unfortunate, but the truth of the matter is their weight is more stressful on there joints. If he was hired with that weight then he is what you hired whether it was his weight or the work that caused the problem. You’ll never really know. Pay the comp. or don’t hire heavy workers.
October 19th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Wow alot of wind being pushed here. yes they made the right decision. He hurt himself at work regardless of how big he was. This could happen to anyone carring something without proper training. Athletes do it and still get paid to sit on the sidelines. Pay the man and send him to rehab teach him to loose weight to be a better more productive worker.
October 21st, 2010 at 10:58 am
Or better yet; don’t hire morbidly obese workers that are a giant risk to themselves and your company!
October 22nd, 2010 at 7:23 pm
I agree with the courts decision. Knee injuries, and specifically torn meniscus, can happen to anyone, not just the obese. I work in HR and Safety and I, myself, have had both knees arthroscopically worked on due to torn meniscus. One was the result of a fall at work, landing on my knee (I walked into the building on a rainy day, wiped my feet off on a mat, stepped on the tile and slipped, hitting my knee, tearing the meniscus.) The other was a result of years of exercise, hiking, walking, and dancing. My orthopedic surgeon explained that that type of injury is a sports injury, because it is so common among athletes.
October 28th, 2010 at 8:48 am
Simply bearing one’s own weight does not constitute an occupational hazard, says the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
I have to agree with the court decision. We have an employee who is the owner of our company’s brother. Initially when he began employment here years ago he was a weight lifter and worked as a mechanic. Eventually he began to work in the Parts department. He was in great shape and had no weight problem. Fast forward to this summer. Said employee now weighs at least 350 pounds. He is approximately 5 ft 9 in. Last spring employee injured his back/sciatic nerve while at home. He is very dramatic in his illnesses and basically no one gave him any attention over this. In August, he suddenly claimed a back injury caused while lifting a battery. There were witnesses to this. The problem is he re-injured his back in June and did not report it.
Our Workers Comp insurance said it would likely be rejected and said employee would have to sue the business/i.e. his own brother. Surprisingly, the claim was approved and now said employee is restricted to lifting no more than 10 lbs. He is undergoing physical therapy and so far no surgery.
If he lost 150 lbs, he’d likely have never injured his back. However, he is protected by Workers Comp and what they say is final. That’s why we pay our premiums. For our protection as well as the employees. Fair? No. It is what it is.
December 29th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I disagree that we should pick and choose workers to fit the job. That is the exact opposite of a good ergonomics program where the jobs are made to fit 95% of the workforce. Anyone familiar with even basic ergonomic principles would see that a job set up that requires twisting/turning/lifting is asking for trouble.
The issue here is more about the design of the task rather than the weight of the worker.Case in point;would the worker have suffered this exact knee injury if the work area had been designed correctly? Maybe,maybe not.But we know that a workstation improperly designed will in fact ultimately lead to injuries.
I see this all the time in industry. The thinking that we get the biggest,strongest man to do the heavy lifting jobs was how it used to be done.Those attitiudes,thankfully,are being replaced with the attitude of designing a workstation free from recognizeable hazards.
December 29th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Obese is obese…
I strongly believe we have to pick,choose and SCREEN the workers to fit the job; how else would we do it? Change a “work station” just for that person everytime we hire a new person? Of course not… But I do agree that the lift, twist, and turn is a recepie for disaster and that this task with these motions could be disasterous for anyone…
However, would you want three, 400# overweight firefighters that can barely get off the truck and their airpack on to respond to your house and attempt to save your family that is trapped? Or, would you want the same firefighters physically fit? No brainer…
Or, how about fat-overwieght cops chasing bad guys?
Respectfully…
December 29th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
I can’t believe we’re still talking about this. What if the guy wanted to be a horse jockey? Would the horse owner be forced to put a saddle on a draft horse? Or how about the opposite — a midget that really wanted to be a NBA player. For crying out loud, the employer probably hired the guy out of despiration to fill the position and now has to pay for an injury that occured in the workplace.