An Injury that Manifests at Work is Not Necessarily a Compensable Workers’ Compensation Claim

On February 22, 2013, the Sixth District Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming summary judgment in favor of the employer inKinsey v. Apex Bold & Machine Co. (Ohio App. 6 Dist. 2013), 2013-Ohio-630, No. L-12-1027.

The claimant in Kinsey began to experience gradually increasing pain and stiffness in his right wrist during his work shift.  He went to the emergency room where he told the examining physician that he believed that he injured his wrist in repetitive welding at work.  He was diagnosed with wrist strain and possible fracture.  Subsequent diagnostic testing did not reveal a fracture, but rather pockets of infection in the wrist.  The abscesses were drained and surgically cleaned.

Mr. Kinsey filed a workers’ compensation claim, which was ultimately allowed for wrist strain, carpal tunnel, sepsis, scaphoid fracture, and cellulitis. The employer filed an appeal to a court of common pleas.  The employer then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Mr. Kinsey was unable to demonstrate a work related injury.  The employer further argued that Mr. Kinsey’s own treating physician maintained that the conditions at issue could only be induced by a cut or skin abrasion.  Mr. Kinsey denied sustaining any cut or abrasion to his wrist at work.  The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment and Mr. Kinsey appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, first noting that Mr. Kinsey’s treating physician’s testimony undermined the existence of some of the medical conditions allowed administratively.  Moreover, the conditions associated with the infection could only be caused by a cut or abrasion, which Mr. Kinsey denied.  The Court emphasized that “[i]t is not enough that an illness or injury manifest itself at work; there must be a causal connection.”  Since Mr. Kinsey failed to present any evidence that his wrist infection occurred as a result of his work, summary judgment was properly granted to the employer.

This case serves as a reminder to employers to look further than where an illness or injury developed in determining whether to contest a workers’ compensation claim.  Even if an injury develops at work, the claimant must still demonstrate that it is was sustained in the course of and arising out of his or her employment.