Was employee’s MRSA infection caused by workplace cut?
September 17, 2010 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Injuries, Latest News & Views, Workers' comp
An employee suffers a cut at work. A MRSA infection develops in the wound. Should treatment of the MRSA infection be covered by workers’ comp?
Here’s what happened:
The employee cut his finger on a piece of sheet metal at work. Several days later, he developed an infection that doctors diagnosed as MRSA, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureas, an antibiotic-resistant strain of staph infection.
A doctor for the employer said the worker probably had the MRSA organism on his skin and that didn’t cause a problem until he had the cut, which provided an entrance for the MRSA.
The doctor said it was extremely unlikely that the MRSA was present on the sheet metal.
Both the MRSA on the skin and the cut were needed to produce the infection, according to the doctor, and they were equally important in creating the infection.
The employer accepted the worker’s claim for the cut but denied coverage for the infection. The worker appealed.
An administrative law judge and the state comp board agreed with the worker. The company took the case to a state appeals court.
The company argued that the employee’s infection should not be covered by workers’ comp, because state law says, “no injury or disease is compensable as a consequence of a compensable injury unless the compensable injury is the major contributing cause of the consequential condition.”
The employer said since the MRSA was already on the worker’s skin, the cut suffered in the workplace didn’t cause the infection.
The court focused on this statement from the doctor: “The incident at work broke the protective barrier of skin. This allowed the MRSA which was present on the surface of the skin to enter the subcutaneous tissues.”
Therefore, the court said, it’s reasonable to state that the worker’s infection was a direct result of the incident at work.
Decision: The employee gets workers’ comp for the infection.
What do you think about the court’s decision? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
Cite: All Seasons Heating & A/C, v. William Pepperling, Court of Appeals of OR, 9/1/10.
For more information on MRSA, click here.
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: employee cut, MRSA infection, Workers' comp
Loading ...
September 21st, 2010 at 1:59 pm
It should be covered because, the MRSA occured as an indirect result of the injury. This would be the same as a complication from any injury or illness. Much the same as an individual dies days or weeks later due to complications of an accident in the work place
September 21st, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Most of the population who receives a cut from any source will simply recover by keeping the wound clean, dry and covered and perhaps antibotic ointment application. MRSA is a virulent mostly a transient bacteria and is not a common denominator. Most of the population does not carry or have MRSA as part of their normal flora or have MRSA on their skin. Healthcare worker wash thier hand to prevent the transmission of MRSA to their patients. Hand washing remover the transient bacteria and prevents transmission to patients. There is no proof thet the worker had MRSA on this skin before the cut occurred. Unless a culture was taken before the cut occurred. It is very possible that the worker did not keep his cut clean, dry, covered, and followed treatment (antibotic ointment application) and the worker was the cause of his MRSA infection. He could of very well picked-up the bacteria anywhere after he cut himself, which has nothing to due with the cut itself. If he did not initially see a doctor and/or receive early treatment for his cut (antibotic oinment) he should of asked his “Mom” what to do.
September 21st, 2010 at 3:18 pm
I understand at lest some of the issues with MRSA. I also understand that it is a product of the over use of anti-bacterial soaps and disinfections which cause the mutant to grow stronger and less affected by medicines. Most of the MRSA is contracted while the victim is in a hospital or hospital like setting. There are about 90k cases of MRSA in the United States every year about 30% result in a fatalilty.
Contracting MRSA after a laceration is quite similar as contracting pneumonia following a severe burn. So the issue is still that the MRSA is a complication of the laceration.
September 21st, 2010 at 4:42 pm
When admitted to a hospital frequently the patient develops a secondary infection that is related to the hospital. This is called a no-socomial infection and the infection is related to being in the hospital. The hospital takes steps to assist the person in recovering from this infection.
The MRSA infection could have been picked up anywhere from a lunch room table to the men’s room to shaking a co-workers hand. The access to the persons interior was a direct result of the break in the persons skin. Skin is the protective covering we all have to protect us from incidents such as this and that happened at work. If there had been no cut there would have been no infection seems to be very clear to me.
September 21st, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Even if MRSA were on the worker’s skin prior to the laceration, it was the work-related injury that caused the infection; therefore, treatment of the infection should be covered. The courts got it right for once.
September 22nd, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Hi Chuck, pleasure to meet you. Once the skin is broken an infection can occur from many types of bacteria or viruses. The fact that it was MRSA has everone over reacting about the issue. It is true that any infection from a break in the skin (cut, surgicial incision, etc…) is a complication, but is one that can and should be avoided by proper care. My money is that he did not already have MRSA on his skin and he cut himself, did not take proper care of the open wound, which got infected (MRSA). Then he decided to go to the doctors, because it was not getting better. The doctor cultured the wound and the results came back MRSA. What if the culture came back with staphococcus infection? Is staph a complication of the cut? Getting a cut does not cause MRSA to appear it is found in the environment. I guess everyone with the common cold got infected at work also.
September 22nd, 2010 at 2:01 pm
I applaud the court finding; without the cut, the MRSA would have remained on the surface and the employee would have suffered no infection. Thus, the end result of the cut was the resultant infection and should be covered by the employer’s worker’s compensation insurance.
September 24th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
There seems to be assumptions by the court and employer that the MSRA was on the skin prior to the cut. It could just as easily have been contaminated after the fact by improper care or simply shaking the hand of another person. Sadly, since nothing can be proven either way, the employer will likely eat it.
I had an employee get a cut on the elbow that developed a staph fungus thing that went on for months. Workes comp is still better than being sued. Suck it up and keep on trucking.
October 11th, 2010 at 12:07 am
Now lets think about this for one minute, person gets cut on the job, and it gets infected, and believe it or not, we all carry upon our person, staff, msra, thats just a fact, so the orginal injury that happened on the job should be picked up by workmans comp.
this is not brain surgery, and should never take up our courts time, and we wont even mention the money that was spent putting this poor man threw this, good luck to you sir, and shame on anyone that cant see what is right in front of our faces,
December 2nd, 2010 at 11:06 am
I see that opinions vary. The fact still is that the skin was broken on the job. The employee is not to blame for the rapid mutation of the infection nor the way over prescribed antibiotics which lends to the resistantcy of (MRSA)
I am currently in a battle over the same toppic. I am recovering from an extremely bad sub-cutaneous case of MRSA which required deep invasive surgery to remove and irradicate the infection from around the tendons and bone in my left hand and wrist. I am a landcsape forman in Columbus, Ohio, while on the job at a company project my middle finger on my left hand was puntured by a thorn while removing wild growth from the area. It is not un-common that while pulling weeds and the like that such incidences occur and with a relative frequency. I removed my gloves and proceeded to clean and dress the wound, then returned to my work. The following day I noticed a very small water blister about the size of a pin head at the puncture site. I again cleaned it thoroughly applied antibiotic ointment and covered with a bandaide. Whithin four days my hand had been raviged. It dawned on me later. that a co worker who was possitve for MRSA had used my gloves. His wound and infection is on his left hand and middle finger, I watched in discust several times as he squeezed puss from his wound. Now 30 days after the ordeal and with nearly $30,000.00 in medical bills I being told that my workes comp claim is denied even though I was in direct contact with an infected MRSA carrier. I pray my situation has as possitive outcome… Andrew K. Barlay Columbus, Ohio
December 3rd, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Andrew: That’s horrible. I think there is a big difference in what happened to you and what happened to the injured worker in the article. Your MRSA was contracted at work. The worker in the article contracted it at the hospital. I’m convinced that that worker has a malpractice suit. Where as with the information you’ve provided that you have a winnable WC case. The sad thing is that you’ll have to share the winnings with an attorney.
Everybody-There’s a lesson to be learned about sharing Personal Protective Equipment whether its is a pare of gloves or a respirator be sure to sanitize it before exchanging it with other personnel. Anything from lice to Hepatitis can be transmitted.