Employee’s transplant damaged in work incident: Does he get comp?
July 19, 2010 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Injuries, Latest News & Views, What do you think?, Workers' comp, new court decision
An employee who suffered from an eye disease had a corneal transplant that improved his vision from 20/200 to 20/50. Then, a workplace incident damaged the transplant, and his vision returned to 20/200.
The Ohio Industrial Commission awarded Millard Thomas benefits for a total loss of vision.
His employer, La-Z-Boy Furniture Galleries, appealed on the grounds it shouldn’t have to pay to return Thomas’ vision to his post-transplant condition, 20/50. The company said Thomas’ vision returned to the 20/200 it was before the transplant (which was brought on by a disease, not a workplace injury), and therefore he shouldn’t get comp benefits.
The case went all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court. It noted that this was a case of “first impression,” meaning one of its kind hadn’t been heard by the state’s highest court before.
In a nutshell, the court said, without precedent, the Industrial Commission could use its discretion to determine that Thomas’ 20/50 corrected vision after the corneal transplant could be used as the measure of his pre-injury visual acuity. Therefore, since his vision went from 20/50 to 20/200, he could receive benefits for a total loss of vision.
Cite: State ex rel. La-Z-Boy Furniture Galleries v. Thomas, Ohio Supreme Court, No. 2010-Ohio-3215, 7/13/10. You can download the court’s decision here (PDF).
What do you think about the court’s ruling? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
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!
Loading ...
July 20th, 2010 at 11:55 am
I agree with the court.
July 20th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Prior to the accident, Thomas had vision of 20/50. It is absolutely correct that the measure of his visual acuity should have been 20/50. Can’t imagine why La-Z-Boy thought otherwise, or was willing to waste time and money trying to fight this ruling (unless there’s some other information that is not in this story).
July 21st, 2010 at 4:04 pm
I agree wtih RandiG… There has to be more to this story.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:29 am
Based upon story, it seems to be the correct decision. I wonder what occurred to reduce the employees vision?
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:07 am
Editor’s note: The court case says Thomas’ eye condition was keratoconus. The court case gives no details about how his eye was injured at work.
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I agree with the court’s decision. The employer accepts the employee in an “as is” condition. It makes no difference whether the employee had a diseased eye which was subsequently corrected by a transplant, or had normal vision. The employee lost vision because of the industrial accident, and therefore should be compensated. That’s what the workers’ compensation laws are about, to compensate for loss. I’m curious why the employer would even think to appeal on these grounds?
July 26th, 2010 at 7:42 am
I have had corneal transplants in both eyes and understand the implications of severly reduced vision. If your car is repaired after an accident and someone damages it again they can’t simply say it was wreched before therefore we will not pay.
July 26th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Based on the information provided I agree with the court. I am also disappointed with the company’s position, this is the type of attitude that results in additional regulation and mandates that feed the entitlement mentality. Many times I see the issues from the employer perspective but must admit on this one their position does not add up.
July 26th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Based on the information provided, I would have to say I agree with the court too. His vision prior to injury at work was 20/50. I don’t know why that critical point of information would or should be disregarded. Seems to me, regardless of how his vision got that way, he had good vision prior to the work injury and very little vision afterward. He should be compensated accordingly. That’s what the insurance if for.
July 26th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
The only thing that might change this decision is if the eyesight returned to the 20/200 because of a failed operation and then the employee claims a comp injury. We have to know what happened. What was the “event” that caused his sight to resort to the original status? If there is a clear cut event, then there should be a clear cut decision.
July 26th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
The court definitely got this one right.