What Is The Most Common Injury Claim On Workmans Comp?

Workers compensation laws provide coverage for workers who suffer an injury at work. In return for this compensation, workers agree to give up certain rights to sue their employers. These laws are designed to protect both the worker and the employer, and help ensure that workers receive the medical care and lost wages that they need.

However, workers can be denied benefits under these laws if they are not truthful about the cause of their injuries. Workers who lie about the cause of their injuries are referred to as fraudulent claimants. A recent case of fraud in Louisiana illustrates how the law is sometimes abused.

The plaintiff was a driver for an oil company and had been injured while driving a truck. He sought medical treatment, and the doctor diagnosed him with neck pain and headaches. The doctor recommended a series of exercises for the plaintiff's neck and prescribed pain medication. After performing these exercises and taking the medication, the plaintiff still experienced symptoms, so he visited another doctor. This second doctor recommended an MRI, and the plaintiff agreed.

The plaintiff then filed a workman's compensation claim. However, the plaintiff did not tell the doctor about his previous injury. The doctor performed the MRI, and the results indicated that the plaintiff had a herniated disk in his neck. The plaintiff admitted to the doctor that he had injured his neck during the course of his employment. The plaintiff then sought benefits from the workers compensation board.

The board denied the plaintiff's claim, and the plaintiff appealed. At trial, the plaintiff testified that he was truthful with the first doctor about his injury. He said that he did not inform the second doctor about his previous injury because he did not think that he had enough symptoms to qualify for benefits. The judge rejected this argument and held that the plaintiff was not truthful in his claim.

The judge noted that the plaintiff's symptoms were similar to the injuries he claimed to have suffered at work. The judge also held that the plaintiff had not told the second doctor that he had a prior injury. The judge found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the reason he did not tell the doctor was honest.

The court of appeal affirmed the trial court. The court of appeal held that the plaintiff's claim was barred because he did not disclose his prior injury to the doctor. The court of appeal noted that the plaintiff's failure to disclose was material to the doctor's diagnosis and treatment.

The court of appeal also held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his omission was based on honesty. The court of appeal reasoned that the plaintiff was dishonest when he omitted his prior injury. The plaintiff had already told the first doctor about his injury, and the doctor could have easily learned about the prior injury from the plaintiff's records.