738 S.E.2d 512
Va. Ct. App.2013Background
- Claimant worked as an electrician for S&S Electric; Central insured initial period, Hartford later assumed coverage.
- Claimant sustained a March 19, 2011 electrical shock injury causing right arm neuropraxia; Central responsible for this injury.
- Claimant developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome; Capone and Hasen/Hasan opinions linked CTS to employment; CTS deemed compensable ordinary disease of life.
- Disability began May 7, 2011, with ongoing total disability; the carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosed and referenced in disability notes in late 2011.
- Deputy commissioner found total disability due to both the March 19 injury and the subsequent CTS; Commission reversed, assigning ongoing TT disability to Hartford under 65.2-506 and Henlsey/Eggleston authority.
- Record shows the two compensable conditions independently contributed to disability; carpal tunnel later diagnosed and referenced as the later injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which insurer pays ongoing TT disability under governing rules | Central argued under two-causes; Hartford contends 65.2-506 last-injury favored | Hartford asserts two-causes rule applies or 65.2-506 misapplied | Court adopted Hartford under 65.2-506, rejecting two-causes rule as inapplicable |
| Is the two-causes rule applicable to this case | Two compensable conditions both related to employer; rule applicable | Rule not applicable when both injuries are compensable | Two-causes rule inapplicable; decision guided by Henlsey and 65.2-506 |
| Was Hensley controlling authority for allocation | Hensley supports later-injury insurer pays | Hensley persuasive but not controlling; appropriate analogies used | Hensley persuasive; commission correctly applied its reasoning to allocate to Hartford |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley, 22 Va. App. 546 (1996) (two-injury, last-injury rule guidance for TT disability payments)
- Eggleston, 264 Va. 13 (2002) (Code 65.2-506 prohibition on paying more than one injury at a time)
- Haftsavar v. All Am. Carpet & Rugs, Inc., 59 Va. App. 593 (2012) (two causes rule for determining compensable injury)
- Minor v. Aramark/VCU, 59 Va. App. 622 (2012) (deference to commission’s legal analysis; de novo review of law)
- Hensley (as cited in opinion), 22 Va. App. 546 (1996) (inference of last-injury rule guiding allocation)