Was pain medicine overdose work-related?
September 10, 2012 by Fred HosierPosted in: Alcohol/drugs, Back/lifting injuries, In this week's e-newsletter, Injuries, new court decision, Special Report, Workers' comp
An employee was prescribed pain meds for a workplace injury. He’d also been taking a medication for depression. An accidental overdose of both meds caused his death. Can his widow get survivor’s benefits under workers’ comp?
Anthony Sapko worked as a corrections officer in the Connecticut prison system.
He was injured four times on the job. Following the third injury, a doctor prescribed medication for back pain.
Sapko had also been prescribed medication for major depression for more than five years before he started taking the pain meds.
Sapko died of what was ruled to be an accidental overdose. At the time of his death, the level of Oxycodone (pain med) in his system was 20 times higher than the prescribed dosage, and the level of Seroquel (depression med) in his system was five times the prescribed dose.
Sapko’s widow applied for workers’ comp death benefits on the grounds that his work injuries were the proximate cause of his death.
A workers’ comp commissioner found that, since the overdose was the combination of both drugs, not just the pain medication, there was a superseding cause of death, and survivor’s benefits should not be awarded. The commissioner also found that both drugs could be taken safely if taken in the proper dosages. The record showed Sapko received counseling on the proper use of pain medications.
Sapko’s widow appealed to the full comp board and then a state appeals court. Both upheld the commissioner’s ruling.
Her final step was to take the case to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
That court also ruled death benefits shouldn’t be provided.
The court noted that the commissioner credited testimony of an expert who said the amount of Oxycodone alone wouldn’t have been enough to kill Sapko. The expert said it was the combination of the excessive amounts of both drugs that claimed his life.
For that reason, there was a superseding cause of death, and therefore workers’ comp benefits should not be provided, the court said.
What do you think of the court’s decision? Let us know in the comments below.
(Sapko v. Connecticut, Supreme Court of CT, No. 18680, 6/12/12)
The Safety Insights You Need
Get the latest safety news, trends, and insights - delivered weekly.
Join over 334,000 safety pros:
Privacy policy
Tags: back injury, death benefits, Oxycodone, Seroquel
Loading ...
September 10th, 2012 at 9:58 am
I believe the courts got it right. He took more of both drugs than what was prescribed. Maybe the Oxycodone had an effect on him making him feel even more depressed in turn making him trying to counterreact with the depression drugs or if he simply committed suicide. It’s sad either way.
September 10th, 2012 at 10:59 am
The article says it was an accidental overdose. Maybe it’s just semantics but when I think of something “accidental” then I think it’s an action taken without understanding the ramifications of our actions. The man had 20 times the prescription dosage of a narcotic in his body, that doesn’t sound accidental to me. I just googled the anti-depressive medication (Seroquel, or Quetiapine) and there is a suicidal warning highlighted on the US National Library of Medicine.
September 11th, 2012 at 7:18 am
I agree with the court’s decision. Although any such death is a tragedy and my heart goes out to his widow, the employer should not be held responsible for the employee’s illegitimate use of medications. Regardless of whether the worker’s death was caused by the combination of both medications or by the pain medication alone, actual use of the medicine was out of the employer’s control. As sad as it is, this appears to be a clear case of prescription drug abuse.
September 11th, 2012 at 8:00 am
I agree with the ruling. If she’s looking for a payday she can either look for studies on the combination of both medications which shows if one increases the effect of the other when taken over a period of time. I know some medications have long half lifes that can be strengthened by another drug. Also, the wife may pursue legal action against the company but if the man was ODing then whose fault is it really?
September 11th, 2012 at 8:24 am
As sad as it is, the courts got it right. It really makes the blood boil that it was brought as a case in the WC system, as it had nothing to do with work, it had to do with the abuse of prescription drugs. This 6 degrees of seperation attitude to wrangle a case through the WC system is rediculous.
September 11th, 2012 at 8:48 am
I’m sorry for the family he left behind, but I agree with the ruling. There has to come a time when people are held accountable for their own actions. It’s not always “someone elses” fault. It wasn’t his wifes falt, it wasn’t his employeers fault and it damm sure wasn’t my fault that he chose to take more meds than he needed to. Prescription overdose is getting out of hand in this country and I think it’s time folks start looking at themselves before they start blaming someone else for their problems.
September 11th, 2012 at 9:23 am
Once again the courts are right. But, why do some people only agree with the courts when they deny claims?
September 11th, 2012 at 9:24 am
Too often we see the mentality of “s/he wouldn’t have even been taking the drug in the first place in they wouldn’t have been injured at work”. Good to see the courts get this one right.
I remember a recent case where someone attending physical therapy for a work-related injury was hit by a car in the therapy provider’s parking lot and got comp with the reasoning they would not have “been there” if not for the injury.
I’m sorry someone got hurt but the employer simply does not have a horse in that race!
September 11th, 2012 at 10:01 am
Ted - Good Question. My opinion is there are too many cases that are brought forth where the employer does not have any resonable opportunity to address through training, equipment, or any management method. It is my belief that employers are easy targets used by people to obtain monetary reward, I believe it is a societal problem that encompasses a “money for nothing” attitude. I have been a Safety Professional for 15 years, and have seen many attempts at fraud, winning some and losing some. I like the concept of Workers Compensation, but think that it should be limited to the premise that the employer could reasonably control or was guided by regulations to prevent the circumstances for which an employee is injured. Employers are not babysitters and cannot afford to do things like teach people to swallow properly, take their meds correctly, or ensure they put on their fragrence of choice in the proper manner - these are all way outside of the scope of employer accountability. Nowdays, folks seem to use what I call the “6 degrees of seperation” theorem to have their case heard, linking their case to the WC system by the most infinate of reasons. Just my 2 cents.
September 11th, 2012 at 11:25 am
DMac, Your response to Ted is so true. I agree with your answer.
September 11th, 2012 at 11:34 am
Accidental or not, and whether the injury was work related or not, it was not a condition of his work that he take 20 times the dosage of Oxycontin and 5 times the dosage of Seroquel. Maybe given the worker’s history of depression and already being on prescription drugs, the doctor should have prescribed a less powerful and certainly a less addictive pain medication. But, not knowing the severity of the injury(ies) it’s hard to say. He sounds to me like a habitual comp rider.
September 11th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
I have a hard time reconciling “accidental” with “20 times…prescribed dosage”. That’s a LOT of pills! Tragic, yes, but in no way the employer’s responsibility. Maybe someone already being treated for major depression should have had someone else monitoring his meds.
September 11th, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Unfortunate for the widow, but the courts got this one right. Lot of good info in the other postings, thanks to all.
September 14th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
If one wanted to make the argument against the employer being responsible in this situation, would not the entire WC system then be responsible for requiring the employer to cover those costs? Who knows. Anyways, it is nice to have some common sense. The courts did a good job here.