March 22, 2010

New York Weighs In on Obesity

Last August we blogged the case of Adam Childers, a morbidly obese pizza maker in Indiana who suffered a back injury. Childers's weight was in itself a substantial obstacle to his getting better, so the court ordered the comp carrier to pay for gastric by-pass surgery. Now we find a similar case in New York, where the state supreme court requires the state fund to pay for by-pass surgery.

Salvatore Laezzo, an employee of the state Turnpike Authority, slipped and fell at work back in 2002. He suffered injuries to his head, neck, back and knees. While we might assume that Laezzo had some weight issues at the time of the injury, in the subsequent years of relative inactivity his weight increased dramatically. There was substantial evidence that Laezzo's weight gain was caused by his work injury. In effect, the New York court has set a somewhat narrower standard for compensability than the court in Indiana: had Laezzo been morbidly obese prior to the injury, the court might have ruled for the carrier.

Seeds of Compensability
New York has some interesting and rather expansive notions of compensability in workers comp. The current ruling cites a precedent involving Stephen Spyhalsky, a construction worker [Spyhalsky v. Cross Construction N.Y.S.2d 212). The court ordered the comp carrier to pay for artificial insemination of Spyhalsky's wife, after back surgery compromised the route taken by his sperm. This unusual definition of compensability leads directly to another intriguing issue: had Spyhalsky been permanently disabled, would the comp carrier be required to pay dependency benefits for the resulting child? In all likelihood, yes.
NOTE: We blogged a somewhat similar situation in Arkansas, where the wife of a deceased claimant was artificially inseminated with his frozen sperm. After a rather complex deliberation, the court rejected her claim for additional dependency benefits.)

When in Doubt, Leave Them Out?
While the logic for including gastric by-pass surgery under workers comp is certainly understandable, there is a strong potential for unintended consequences: obese job applicants, who already face myriad problems in finding employment, may encounter even more discrimination. These well-publicized court rulings place the burden of gastric by-pass surgery directly on comp insurers and employers. The latter may shy away from hiring qualified obese applicants. After all, the obese are at greater risk for injury and, once injured, their weight becomes a substantial obstacle to returning to productive employment.

It would be nice to think that the pending expansion of healthcare benefits to nearly all Americans might make this cost-shifting problem go away. Alas, the game of "pin the tail on the payer" has only just begun.

| 2 Comments

2 Comments

But John, after approval of Healthcare, doesn't the injured worker have a RIGHT to be thin in his pursuit of happiness?

for those of you who do not know me read sarcasm.

It seems to me that Mr. Laezo's obesity was caused by eating, otherwise the Gastric bypass surgery would not be the solution.
If nobody told him that he would gain weight due to his being inactive, which should be common sense, then the solution to that problem would be an appointment with a nutritionist.
Come on... If your not going to do the work, you are just not going to do the work and nothing will work!

Subscribe

Submit your email to be notified when this site is updated

Need help with your workers' comp program?

Monthly Archives

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jon Coppelman published on March 22, 2010 12:16 PM.

Walmart: Shopping for Souls in Aisle Three was the previous entry in this blog.

Maine's Fee Schedule: Down the Rabbit Hole is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID