The most painful warning sign EVER!

That looks like it hurts....

And that's why open machinery must be guarded, either by an actual guard or by distance or location. Many of our work injury cases stem from employees having their hands and arms caught in unguarded machinery, causing severe damage, including amputation.

Treatment Options for Scarring After an Accident

Many of our clients suffer from work related accidents that leave visible scarring. Over the years I have represented Pennsylvania workers' compensation claimants that have suffered from work related burns, cuts, etc., that can leave horrible looking scars.

I have blogged about how the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act treats scarring. An injured worker who suffers a scar is entitled to receive a specific amount of money based upon the severity of the scare, its location and your weekly compensation rate. You can only receive these types of scarring benefits for scars that are on the head or neck-- nothing for any other body part scarring such as on the hands or legs.

Over at the main Carroll & Carroll blog I've posted an article about the various treatments for scarring. Check it out here. Obviously, because the treatment is for a scar that is work related, then the workers' compensation insurance company must pay for whatever treatment is necessary.

Some of our successful case results

Please note that every case is different and these workers' compensation lump sum settlements, while accurate, do not represent what we may obtain for you in your case. Every injured worker is different given the type of injury, the amount of disability, your average weekly wage and weekly compensation benefit rate.

Nor does it mean that we win all of our cases - we don't. Our clients tell us that knowing that we have achieved significant results is one factor that many of them used to decide to hire us. You certainly should ask any prospective attorney whether he or she has obtained significant verdicts and lump sum or compromise and release settlements but the decision to hire an attorney should not be made on this factor alone. We would be more than happy to discuss any of these cases, and many others, with you.

Bridge Construction worker with herniated discs in neck - $385,000.00

43 year old male who was a highly paid bridge construction worker injured his neck while lifting on the job. He ultimately had to undergo two cervical surgeries to repair herniated discs in his neck. Thereafter, he developed RSD or Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in his left arm. He ultimately lost the use of his left arm for every, practical uses. He also started experiencing the same symptoms in his right arm, all stemming from the neck injury.Carroll & Carroll, P.C. filed litigation. The insurance company accepted responsibility for the work injury and even agreed that the claimant lost the use of his left arm. However, the workers' compensation insurance company disputed the relatedness of the right arm.The case settled for $385,000.00 which is a record settlement for Carroll & Carroll, P.C. in a workers' compensation case. Also part of the settlement is that the insurance company has agreed to pay whatever medicare set aside amount is required by Medicare.

Repatative Use Injury to Arms - $175,000.00

53 year old woman had worked at a label making plant for over 20 years. Several years ago, she began having pain in her right arm when she would perform her highly repetitive duties making labels for clothing. When she was restricted to one arm work, she had to use her "good" arm too much and began suffering the same symptoms in the left arm. Carroll & Carroll, P.C. filed a claim petition against the employer and won the case. The workers' compensation judge ruled that the claimant first suffered a right arm epicondylitis and then, due to over-use, suffered the same condition in her left arm later in her employment. An interesting twist in this case was that each "arm injury" was covered by a different insurance company due to the time the injuries arose.

Eventually, Carroll & Carroll, P.C. was able to secure a settlement for the claimant that protected her future medical bills and allowed her to retire with no financial worries.

Loss of use of arm for lumber yard worker - $150,000.00

27 year old male who was working at a local lumber yard injured his arm on a piece of the industrial machinery used to plane wood. While clearing out pieces of debris from the machine, another employee turned it on, locking the client's arm in the machine and causing injury. The client's arm was significantly injured, needing many surgeries.Carroll & Carroll, P.C. filed a petition to force the workers' compensation insurance company to pay the client specific loss benefits. These are benefits an injured employee receives when he/she loses the use of a body part. We argued that the client lost the use of his arm due to the injury. We eventually settled the case for a lump sum payment of $150,000.00. Also, the client is on social security disability. Carroll & Carroll, P.C. has also filed a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of the machine due to it being defective for not having proper safeguards designed into the machine.

Construction worker broke leg requiring surgery - $145,000.00

While on a job site, a 45 year old construction worker tripped over some boards, breaking his leg. The break was so bad that surgery had to be done to place screws and plates to mend the bones. Unfortuneately, the client's leg was so disabled that he could not return to construction work. Further, the client developed RSD or what is now referred to as Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Carroll & Carroll, P.C. was able to win the client's comp benefits after the insurance company denied him what was owed to him. Further, we were able to secure Social Security Disability benefits for the client, then settle his workers' compensation claim for $145,000.00. After the comp settlement, the client will continue to receive his monthly SSD check plus have all of his medical bills paid for through Medicare.

Shop Teacher Amputates Fingers on Table Saw - $125,000.00

A Vocational Tech teacher for a local school severely injured his hand while using a table saw in shop class. Even though the teacher returned to work after a brief period, Carroll & Carroll, P.C. filed a claim for the "specific loss" of use of several fingers. We were able to prove that the teacher had loss the use of three fingers either through outright amputation or severe damage. The case was ultimately settled for a lump sum of $125,000.00 including the payment of all medical bills and the waiver of the workers' compensation lien against any recovery from the product liability case against the table saw manufacturer.

Lumbar Surgery - $110,000.00

38 year old male injured his lower back while lifting something heavy at work. He eventually had lumbar spine surgery and was totally disabled. He had been on workers' compensation for many years before coming to Carroll & Carroll, P.C. for help in getting some medical bills paid. We made sure he was approved for Social Security Disability and Medicare. Then we settled his workers' compensation case for $110,000.00. Now the claimant does not have to worry about his benefits being cut off or looking over his shoulder all the time worrying that someone was watching him. He did not have to go to hearings anymore and could move on with his life.

Loss of Use of Hand - $110,000.00

60 year old woman had her hand trapped in a conveyor belt while working at a local cabinet making plant. After several surgeries on her hand and a partial amputation of her index finger, she no longer had much use of the hand. The lawyers at C&C Law filed a petition for specific loss of use of her hand. We put on such a good case that we were able to settle her case for a $110,000.00 lump sum payment plus continued medical coverage for 2 years.

Blister On Foot Nets Big Comp Settlement - $90,000.00

45 year old male who injured his foot at work causing swelling. Because he continued to keep working with the swelled foot, a blister appeared due to his tight fitting shoe. Unfortunately, the blister became infected with MSR. The employee went through many surgeries and loss of a few toes due to the infection. Complicating matters was the fact that the employee had pre-existing diabetes that was obviously not related to work and that contributed to the infection not healing. So, the insurance company argued that the employee's current condition was not related to the original work injury but to his diabetes.

Carroll & Carroll, P.C. filed a Specific Loss petition claiming that due to the many surgeries and infection and loss of a few toes, the claimant had loss the use of his entire foot as if it was actually amputated. Also, there was a question as to jurisdiction of the case. The insurance company wanted to have the case heard in either Maryland (where the original foot injury occurred) or New Jersey (where the employer's corporate headquarters was located) or in New York (where claimant lived), three states that are not as good for injured workers as Pennsylvania. We were able to negotiate with the insurance company to have the case heard in Pennsylvania. Also, we were able to get all of the medical bills paid. Further, we were able to convince the insurance company that the claimant actually loss the use of his foot. The case was settled for a lump sum of $90,000.00. Also, the claimant was approved for Social Security Disability so he will be receiving monthly benefits in order to pay his living expenses. Further, he was approved for medicare so his future medical bills will be paid.

Work related back injury but no surgery - $80,000.00

A 26 year old man injured his back lifting something heavy while working at Proctor and Gamble in Meshoppen, Pennsylvania. The client was off work due to his injuries despite the fact that P&G wanted him to come back to work on light duty. The client did not have surgery on his lumbar spine.

Worker who lost leg in construction accident receives $13M

A construction worker whose leg had to be amputated after it was crushed by falling beams recovered a $13 million settlement.

In 2005, Timothy McGuire was standing near an 80-foot I-beam on the Harrah's casino construction site in Chester when an aerial boom operator hit the beam, causing a chain reaction of falling beams. They landed on McGuire's right leg, crushing it. After 16 surgeries, his leg ultimately had to be amputated above-the-knee.

McGuire and his wife blamed general contractor T.N. Ward and subcontractors Samuel Grossi & Sons and E&R Erectors, arguing that they failed to ensure workers' safety. The plaintiffs also alleged the beams were improperly stored. Lawsuits against Harrah's Entertainment and Chester Downs were dismissed after the other parties agreed to the settlement. The case was filed in Philadelphia County.

To see the full report on this case, go to VerdictSearch.com.

At C&C Law, we have handled many construction site accidents in both Pennsylvania and New York. See more information on the website relating to construction site accidents here and here.

How much is your arm worth?

Because the last post dealt with specific loss benefits, I thought I would provide a quick primer on what this means. Under the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, if you lose a particular extremity, or lose the use of that extremity, then you can be compensated for that loss. Basically, if you get your arm chopped off at work, you are entitled to a set amount of weeks of total disability benefits based upon your average weekly wage.

Here is a list directly from the statute listing what each body part is worth.

As you can see from the list, for example, an arm is worth 410 weeks of benefits plus a 20 week healing period. Therefore, if you lost your arm (or lost the use of it for every day practical purposes) then you would receive a total of 430 weeks. You would multiply your total disability compensation rate (TTD) by 430 and that is how much your arm is worth.

It is obvious that this type of system is not fair at all. A person who works at a desk and shuffles papers but earns a high salary (er...eh...like me....) would get a significant payment if I lost my arm, even though I could pretty much do my normal job of shuffling papers with a few minor modifications. However, a construction worker earning $15.00/hour, for example, probably would NEVER be able to do his/her normal job with only one arm, but he would receive less money than I. That just is not fair. The person who needs their arm the most to support themselves and their family gets the least amount of money.

A rich person's arm is worth more than a poor person's arm.

New case law on allowing total disability benefits even when the injured employee is back to work

In Allegheny Power Service Corp. v. WCAB, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that the WCAB has discretion under the Workers' Compensation Act to award total disability benefits even when an injured worker is able to return to a job and earn wages.

In 1995, the injured worker suffered severe electrical burns when he came in contact with a charged electrical line. His right arm was amputated at the elbow and his left hand was badly damaged to the point of being almost useless.

The claimant eventually returned to light duty work at his normal wages so the insurance company stopped his total disability wage benefits. Claimant's counsel, though, filed a penalty petition contending that under Section 306(c)(23), Claimant should continue to receive total disability wage benefits despite him returning the work.

The workers' compensation judge determined that the matter was governed by section 306(c)(23) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), which creates a statutory presumption of total disability for individuals who suffer specified bilateral losses: “Unless the board shall otherwise determine, the loss of both hands or both arms or both feet or both legs or both eyes shall constitute total disability, to be compensated according to the provisions of [section 306(a) of the Act, 77 P.S. §511].” 77 P.S. §513(23) (emphasis added).

On appeal, the Employer argued that the WCAB erred in interpreting section 306(c)(23) of the Act as mandating an award of total disability benefits without regard to evidence of Claimant’s post-injury earning power. Specifically, the Employer argued that, because awards under section 306(a) are premised upon a loss of earning power, the principle that specific loss benefits are payable without regard to a claimant’s earning power is not applicable to awards under section 306(c)(23). The Commonwealth Court disagreed.

The Court held that a claimant who sustains an injury adjudged compensable under section 306(c) (specific loss) is not entitled to compensation beyond that provided by section 306(c), even though he may be totally disabled by his injury. Killian v. Heintz Div. Kelsey Hayes, 468 Pa. 200, 360 A.2d 620 (1976). It always has been recognized that the right to compensation under section 306(c) is measured by the extent of the injury, regardless of the degree of disability. Morrow v. James S. Murray & Sons, 7 A.2d 109 (Pa. Super. 1939).

In cases where there is a bi-lateral loss, the claimant's future earning power should not be considered. Also, the sole discretion lies with the WCAB and cannot be overturned on appeal. Thus, if the WCAB determined, as it did in this case, that the claimant should receive ongoing total disability benefits, despite working, then the appellate courts cannot overturn that decision.