If you have never heard the term idiopathic and the first time you do is when you have a work related injury, you probably are not very happy you heard it. As I have discussed in previous posts,  in order for a work injury to be compensable, it  must “arise out of” and “in the course” of your employment.  An injury arises out of employment where there is some causal connection between the work environment under which you worked and your injury. Now, if your injury is denied based on an idiopathic injury, it means the employer and insurer believe your work environment did not cause your injury.

An idiopathic injury is defined as an injury which is either peculiar to the individual or arising spontaneously from an obscure or unknown cause.  The key of course in these types of cases is determining what the “cause” of the injury or accident was really from. Consequently, whether an idiopathic injury is compensable will depend on the facts  surrounding the accident. 

One of the most common examples of an idiopathic injury for which the cause of the harm is unknown is the unexplained fall in the course of employment. Injuries from true idiopathic falls do not arise out of the employment unless the employment increases the risk or aggravates the injury by, for example, placing the employee in a position which increases the dangerous effect of the fall, such as on a height, near machinery or sharp corners, or in a moving vehicle.

In situations where your injury has been denied based on an alleged “idiopathic injury”, you may want to consult with an attorney to assist you with your claim.  An experienced attorney should be able sit down and discuss with you whether you injury is truly idiopathic or, in fact, a compensable work related injury.

Jerry Sisk

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Tweet This Post

Many of us think that if an injury occurs at work, it is automatically means that benefits should be paid. However, not every injury at work is covered under Minnesota workers’ compensation.

For example, the WCCA recently decided in Lester v. Allina Health System (WCCA 10/14/2008) that an employee’s fall at work resulting in a right ankle fracture was not compensable as it did not “arise out of” the employee’s employment.  The employee in this case was apparently walking from her parking ramp to her work station prior to beginning her shift when she fell on the carpet. At trial, the employee testified that she was really not sure what caused the fall other than possibly stubbing her toe, tripping over something, tripping over her own feet, or a simple misstep. The trial court and ultimately the WCCA felt she had failed to meet her burden of proof in order to establish a work injury. The court provided that in order for there to be a compensable work injury, the injury must “arise out of and in the course” of her employment.

So you may be asking then what does “arise out of” mean?

“Arise out of” refers to a causal connection between the injury and the employment. The employment or employment activities need to be the source of injury producing hazard. In other words, there needs to be some hazard that increases the employee’s exposure to injury beyond that of the general public.

It is not sufficient that an injury take place at work but instead their must be a connection to the employer and the injury beyond that of the general public.  The fact that you fall at work may not be enough, as there needs to be something at work to cause the injury. I believe the case above would have been different if the employee would have known how the injury occurred, such as by water, ice, a loose mat, etc.

Following an injury at work, it is good idea to consult an attorney who is experienced and knowledgeable in Minnesota workers” compensation law. Unfortunately, there are attorneys who may not understand all the caveats to the work comp law.  If you have an injury feel free to contact me at www.jerrysisk.com or at jsisk@noacklawoffice.com.

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Tweet This Post

In order for a Minnesota work injury to be compensable it must “arise out of” and in the “course of employment.” There must be a causal connection between the work activities and the injury.

In Klug v. Cummins Power Generation, (WCCA 10/16/08) the WCCA upheld the compensation judge’s decision that an injury to the neck sustained while looking up in the air was compensable. The WCCA stated that it is only necessary that the injury follow a “natural incidence of the work.” In this case, the work required the employee to look up at parts, therefore, the employee was subject to an increased risk.

(photo: Raymond)

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Tweet This Post