Opinion ID: 1878949
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proceeding before Workers' Compensation Hearing Officer

Text: The worker's compensation hearing officer framed the issue presented as two-fold: One, whether or not this is a perivascular incident which should be controlled by the heart-related provisions of the Act; or whether or not it's an accident which would be controlled by the accident provision of the Act; and [two] whether the employee's confinement after the '96 accident, if it is an accident, combined with, accelerated or aggravated his condition to such an extent that it caused his death; or whether or not if it's a perivascular incident he was subjected to some extraordinary or unusual stress in relationship to other employees in the same field to cause his death. First, citing Charles v. Travelers Insurance Co., 627 So.2d 1366 (La.1993), the workers' compensation hearing officer found that the pulmonary thromboembolism Hatcherson suffered was a perivascular incident covered by Section 1021(7)(e). [6] That finding was accepted by the appellate court and not questioned by the parties before this court. Second, in finding the statutory requirements satisfied by the facts, the workers' compensation hearing officer equated physical work stress with the decedent's physical condition, reasoning: Hatcherson's work stress was extraordinary and unusual in comparison to the physical work stress experienced by the average employee in his occupation. The court reaches this conclusion based on the fact that no other employee in Hatcherson's occupation was laboring under the debilitating effects of a herniated lumbar disk. His physical condition in and of itself was extraordinary. While the herniated lumbar disk did not cause Hatcherson's death, it certainly combined with, accelerated and aggravated his condition to the extent that his work stress was greatly increased over tha[t] experienced by other employees in his occupation. (Emphasis supplied). Invoking the principle that an employer takes the employee as he finds him and that abnormally susceptible employees are entitled to the same protection under the workers' compensation law as healthier employees, the workers' compensation hearing officer continued: Hatcherson cannot be compared with the average employee on the date of his death because he was not in the same physical condition on that date as the average employee. He was in pain, uncomfortable and traveling a far distance for work-related reasons. It was work-related reasons which put him in the place he was at the time he was there, and it was work which caused him to be in the physical condition he was at the time of his death. (Emphasis supplied). The workers' compensation hearing officer also rejected the medical testimony of defendant's expert, Dr. Iteld, regarding causation; particularly, Dr. Iteld's opinion was that the cause of death was the result of the decedent's two pre-existing conditions of morbid obesity coupled with his venous insufficiency. Rejecting that medical causation testimony and characterizing causation in worker's compensation matters as not only a medical, but also a legal, issue, the court found that legally: Hatcherson's physical condition, the debilitating and severe pain he suffered as a result of the inoperable lumbar herniated disk aggravated his physical condition to the point that his already weakened body succumbed to the throws of the embolism which ultimately caused his death.