GA Worker’s Subsequent Fall at Home Was an Intervening Cause of Current Condition
A Georgia appellate court found that a state superior court erred when it reversed the State Board of Workers’ Compensation’s determination that an injured worker had recovered from a work-related fall, such that a subsequent slip and fall at the worker’s home was not connected with his employment and was the cause of the worker’s current condition of back pain [Express Empl. Professionals v. Barker, 2021 Ga. App. LEXIS 426 (Aug. 26, 2021)]. Acknowledging that there was conflicting evidence in the record, the appellate court stressed that it was for the Board, not the superior court, to resolve the conflict. Prior to the second fall, a physician had opined that the worker had reached MMI, provided full duty work release, and stated that no follow-up was required. That was sufficient to support the Board’s determination, stressed the appellate court.
Background
Barker, an employee of a temporary employment agency, was assigned to work at a seafood processing and repackaging plant when, on August 14, 2018, he fell onto the left side of his hip, buttocks, and left wrist while attempting to move a bin of fish parts. Later that day he received treatment from Dr. Leslie Cottrell, complaining of pain in “his left hip and across his back.” He did not inform Dr. Cottrell that he had a history of back pain, and she diagnosed Barker with a lumbar sprain and instructed him to begin physical therapy. Barker began receiving TTD workers’ compensation benefits.
On September 14, 2018, Barker met with another physician, Dr. Chad Kessler, and complained of back pain and radiating bilatteral upper extremity pain with numbness and tingling. Dr. Kessler diagnosed him with a lumbar strain, gave him work restrictions, and instructed him to begin physical therapy. On October 26, 2018, following an MRI, Dr. Kessler placed Barker on maximum medical improvement, provided full duty work release, and stated that no follow-up was required. The employer then suspended Barker’s wage benefits.
Second Fall
In April 2019, an ALJ denied Barker’s motion seeking recommencement of TTD benefits. Barker was then examined by Dr. David Weiss, who opined that while Barker “has a constellation of symptoms … many [of which] are not significant,” that his “present symptoms are a direct result of his on the job injury.” Barker then went to another doctor, Dr. Tariq Javed, who diagnosed Barker with lower back pain, lumbar facet arthopathy, and SI joint pain. After seeing these doctors, Barker fell at home in April 2019 when he slipped on a wet surface and landed on his left buttocks and hip, the same location of impact as his work injury, and a different doctor diagnosed him with midline low back pain and bilateral sciatica, with unspecified chronicity.
ALJ’s Decision
In August 2019, the ALJ held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Barker was entitled to a resumption of TTD benefits. After the hearing, the ALJ concluded that Barker underwent a change in condition for the better on October 26, 2018 and did not require further medical treatment nor have any disability as a result of his work accident and injury. The ALJ also concluded that the fall that occurred at Barker’s home on April 20, 2019 was a nonwork related injury which was now the cause of any need for medical treatment or any possible disability as it either aggravated, caused or continued any back problems thus breaking any chain of causation which may have existed as is contemplated by OCGA § 34-9-204 (a). Barker appealed the ALJ’s ruling to the Appellate Division of the state Board, which affirmed the ALJ’s decision and adopted its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Superior Court Reverses
The superior court reversed the Board’s findings that Barker experienced a subsequent, intervening accident which broke the chain of causation. The superior court also found that this conclusion was “judicially inconsistent” with the Board’s other conclusion that Barker underwent a change of condition for the better on October 26, 2018, and would no longer be entitled to wage or medical benefits from that point forward. The Court of Appeals granted the employer’s application for discretionary review, and this appeal followed.
Court of Appeals Decision
The appellate court noted that the superior court was required to construe the evidence favorably to the employer, the party prevailing before the Board, and apply “an any-evidence standard of review to the Board’s findings of fact.” Here the recorded showed that Dr. Kessler reviewed Barker’s MRI and saw Barker again on October 26, 2018, when he determined that although Barker had some complaints of pain, “[a]s far as his workers compensation injury he is discharged at MMI.”
The court acknowledged that the record contained competing evidence. For example, Barker was subsequently diagnosed after October 26 by a different doctor as having back pain caused by his work fall. But at least some evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Barker’s work related injury had resolved. Given these circumstances, the superior court erred in reversing the Board’s decision.
Intervening Accident
Moreover, said the court, the superior court erred in reversing the Board’s finding that Barker experienced a subsequent, intervening accident which broke the chain of causation. Here, the evidence showed that Barker had been released to full duty work on October 26, 2018, when he slipped and fell on a wet surface at home in April 2019. This fall was a subsequent, nonwork related injury, and Barker fell on his left hip and left buttocks like he did when he fell at work. Thus, there was evidence to support the Board’s finding that Barker experienced a subsequent, intervening accident which broke the chain of causation, and the superior court was required to affirm the Board’s Award pursuant to the any evidence standard of review, which it failed to do.
Board’s Findings Were Not Inconsistent
The appellate court also held the superior court erred in determining that the Board’s findings that Barker had a subsequent intervening accident, which broke the chain of causation, and underwent a change of condition for the better on October 26, 2018 were judicially inconsistent. Although Barker complained of the same injury after the fall at home, the Board found that his earlier, work-related injury had resolved. There was evidence to support the Board’s finding that the later accident—not the first—was the cause of Barker’s current condition.