He smoked for 30 years: Was heart attack from exertion at work?
February 13, 2012 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Injuries, Latest News & Views, new court decision, Special Report, Workers' comp
PDF A restaurant manager suffered a heart attack and underwent quintuple bypass surgery. He says he felt chest pains after lifting heavy loads at work. However, he was also a smoker for 30 years. Was the heart attack work-related, and will he get workers’ comp?
Edmondo Bemis worked for Perkiomen Grille Corp. as a chef and manager. One day he was moving kegs of beer in a walk-in cooler when he felt pain in his chest.
Three days later he felt the same chest pain while lifting a heavy pot of chili. After this episode he ended up in the hospital for three days. He went back to work but had heart bypass surgery six weeks later.
Bemis filed a claim for workers’ comp benefits, saying he suffered a work-related injury on the day he was moving kegs of beer.
At a hearing by a workers’ comp judge (WCJ), Bemis’s cardiologist testified that the lifting incidents at work certainly could have and probably did precipitate Bemis’s heart attack. The doctor said Bemis’s physical exertion on those days resulted in a further narrowing of his coronary arteries, decreasing the blood supply to his heart and resulting in the chest pain and heart damage.
The WCJ accepted the doctor’s testimony but found it was subject to more than one interpretation and legally insufficient to establish that lifting at work was a cause of Bemis’s heart attack.
The Workers’ Comp Board upheld the WCJ ruling. Bemis took his case to a state appeals court, arguing that the WCJ erred in concluding that his doctor’s testimony was subject to more than one interpretation.
The appeals court noted that in cases in which the connection between an employee’s work and his injury is not obvious, including heart attacks, medical testimony must establish that there is a link.
“The law does not require every utterance which escapes the lips of a medical witness on a medical subject to be certain, positive, and without reservation or exception,” the appeals court wrote. “A medical witness’s use of words such as “probably,” “likely,” and “somewhat” will not render an opinion equivocal so long as the testimony, read in its entirety, is unequivocal.”
The court said in this case, the WCJ erred in finding that the testimony of Bemis’s doctor wasn’t sufficient to establish the link between lifting heavy loads at work and his heart attack. The court reversed the WCJ’s decision and sent the case back to the WCJ to calculate Bemis’s workers’ comp benefits.
End result: Bemis will get workers’ comp benefits.
What do you think about the court’s decision? Let us know in the comments below.
(Edmondo Bemis vs. Workers’ Compensation Board, Commonwealth Court of PA, No. 2687 C.D. 2010, 12/27/11)
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: heart attack, lifting, smoker, Workers' comp
Loading ...
February 14th, 2012 at 7:57 am
Bravo to the court for not saddling Perkiomen Grille Corp. with the financial responsibility of someone else’s 30 years of negligence. Probably the most this guy ever exercised outside of work was 12 oz. beer curling and 1 lb. hamburger lifts, while he sat in front of the TV. NOTHING against those who are hit with circumstances beyond their control… but more and more, those of us who earn an honest living and take care of our bodies and finances are having to kick into the system for preventable illnesses and injuries. With the overwhelming multitude of safety and health information out there, such “ignorance” is not ignorance but willful neglect and even self abuse. I am not a business owner or even manager, but I am all for stricter laws that protect honest business owners.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:37 am
Workers compensation is a joke. It only protects the businesses and insurance companies dont care about the financial and medical problems of the injured worker.
” Bemis’s cardiologist testified that the lifting incidents at work certainly could have and probably did precipitate Bemis’s heart attack.
The doctor said Bemis’s physical exertion on those days resulted in a further narrowing of his coronary arteries, decreasing the blood supply to his heart and resulting in the chest pain and heart damage”
In the first statement the doctor said that “certainly could have and probably did”
The second statement said the exertion caused the damage to his heart. “Certain, positive, and without reservation or exception” seems pretty conclusive to me. However they state “it is subject to interpretation!!!!” I do not think they can read or comprehend what was said!!!
TOTAL ERROR ON THE WORKERS COMP BOARD!!!!!
February 14th, 2012 at 8:39 am
Seems a little like blaming the straw for the camel’s broken back.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:33 am
I do not agree with the final ruling in this case. It leads me to believe that companies will need to consider rewriting their qualifications for jobs and require periodical physicals to protect their worker compensation payouts from going through the roof. Truck drivers are subject to physicals and must meet medical requirements which are written by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Blood pressure, sugar levels, hearing, and eye sight are tested and results must be within a normal limit which are also set by the FMCSA. A major hospital in Northern Pennsylvania will not hire anyone who smokes. Something to think about. Thank you.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:30 am
A heart attack or ehart disease has never been, and never will be an occupational injury. Unless the guy smoked as an occupation, or eating tons of pork was a job description, the employer did not cause his arteries to be clogged. It is an attempt at WC fraud once again. It is competely absured that they even let cases such as this make it to court. We once had an employee of another compnay file a claim for WC because he contracted a venereal disease from one of our employees while she was on the payroll. This case is no less ridiculous. Why is common sesne so rare these days?
February 14th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
I disagree with the ruling. Lifting in itself does not cause heart attacks. I think the ruling could result in those who suffer from chronic illnesses not being able to find work. I’m sorry the man had a heart attack but his genes and life style choices are the source of the problem not work. The ruling could possibly have a negative effect on our social security disability rates too. If people with chronic illnesses can’t work because their illness is covered under worker’s compensation rather than health insurance than will they be able to get on social security disability? The more likely scenario is that it will cause a lot of people a lot of hardship.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Well seems as if the employer’s attorney should have been asking if it was probable that this person would have at some point suffered a heart attack or heart problem due to his overall health condition and habits. I believe people should have the right to make personal choices good or bad, however they should not expect their employer to foot the bill!
February 14th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Bad judgment ruling! His arteries were already clogged or he wouldn’t have undergone bypass surgery. His company did not cause that. Shame on him for blaming his employer instead of taking responsibility for his own lifestyle. Pitiful, to say the least.
February 14th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
I’ve never in my life heard that lifting some items can cause a heart attack. But many times smoking has been the cause of heart attacks. I can’t believe this guy would try to fraudently get WC. Once his payments start coming in he’ll be buying cigarettes for himself on our money instead of his own. One other thing, his doctor will be getting paid dishonestly also.
February 15th, 2012 at 10:45 am
Just more liberal California garbage, which has now established new case law for lawyers and doctors to make a few bucks from. I don’t blame lawyers for trying to make a buck as we do live in a capitalistic society. It’s the fault of the judges and the people that vote for them for allowing such arbitrary matters to gain speed in the court systems. Most U.S. jobs keep moving to other countries because of cheap labor but avoiding issues such as these are icing on the cake.
February 15th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
What this boils down to for me is a cadiologist, not just some family practice doctor with limited knowledge, testified that his heart attack was most likely caused by work. I like most of you would agree that this is unlikely to be the sole cause, but if this is in question why would the workers comp board not get another cardiologist to give an independent “interpretation?” This particular case doesn’t sound like intentional fraud, more like desparation on the part of the employee. Many restaurants do not offer health insurance, this guy was likely just exploring every possible option to get the bills paid for a very expensive operation. Yes, an abuse of the workers comp program, but I cannot villify this guy as much as so many others who are obviously only in it for a payday.
February 15th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Mr. Bemis was moving kegs of beer in a walk-in cooler. Was he lifting them or rolling them? I did an internet search and found the legal document. It states he”…was moving kegs of beer…” If he was actually lifting them his lawyer would have used the word “lift”. A doctor was quoted as saying that it was “very likely that lifting the hundred-pound kegs of beer…precipitated the event.” I wouldn’t lift 100 pound kegs of beer. I would roll them, ask for assistance in lifting, or use a hand cart.
How heavy was this pot of chili that he lifted? How far did he move/lift it? Was there a co-worker available to assist in lifting it?
Both at-risk tasks could have been mitigated.
February 15th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Our employees work outdoors in South Texas, which means extreme heat and humidity in the summer. A few years back we incorporated twice daily blood pressure monitoring in to our heat stress program. Each year we have found at least one employee with Blood Pressure at dangerous levels. We send them to their doctors and don’t allow them to return to the field until there BP is under control. We also talk to them about bad eating habits, smoking and drinking. We stress that we care about the quality of their lives now and in the future. And no it doesn’t always get through, we still have smokers and guys who drink an energy drinks each morning. People will do whatever they choose to do and unfortunately they will pass the blame to someone else, like the person in this article. There is no way a person who has been alive at any point in the past 35-40 years doesn’t know that cigarettes are extremely harmful to your health. This ruling just allows him to avoid his responsibility to himself, and that’s too bad.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:29 am
WC saying moving a beer keg and lifting a pot of chili caused this heart attack is like saying a stop sign caused an accident after 30 years of neglecting the brakes on your car. The appeals court is wrong - again.