Facing the Facts: Scarred Workers Deserve Better
In certain circumstances, injured workers also sustain permanent disfigurement as a direct result of a work injury, leaving them with constant reminders of the trauma they endured years after their treatment has ended.
October 09, 2019 at 11:14 AM
4 minute read
It is widely known that the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act provides injured workers with wage loss and medical benefits associated with an injury on the job. In certain circumstances, injured workers also sustain permanent disfigurement as a direct result of a work injury, leaving them with constant reminders of the trauma they endured years after their treatment has ended.
Scarring from burns, lacerations and surgical procedures; chipped or missing teeth; discoloration of the skin; and eye amputations or deformities are all examples of this harsh reality. Although damages for emotional distress and pain and suffering are not available to injured workers under the act, a financial award in the form of disfigurement benefits are available to compensate for serious, permanent and unsightly disfigurements attributable to a work injury.
One would assume that severe scars or burns covering an individual's entire body following a work injury would be compensable under the act. Unfortunately, an award for disfigurement benefits only applies to visible deformities on the head, face and neck. In fact, it has even been specifically determined that the lowest part of the "neck" for which such compensation is payable is where the clavicle, scapula and sternum meet, see U.S. Steel v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Gouker), 416 A.2d 619 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1980).
Therefore, if you suffer significant scarring on the torso, legs or hands—areas that are commonly visible outside of the workplace and can cause extreme self-consciousness for a lifetime—you are not eligible to receive any financial award no matter how severe the disfigurement is. If the purpose of the act is to make injured workers as whole as possible following a work injury, it clearly fails to provide the benefits they deserve in this instance.
Moreover, determining the value of the disfigurement can be difficult at times and the process is highly subjective. Once it is proven that the disfigurement is permanent and was directly caused by a work injury, a workers' compensation judge will typically examine the worker from various distances, measure the disfigurement with a ruler to determine its length, and describe the color, size and other characteristics on the record. The highest allowable award by a judge is 275 weeks of benefits depending on the severity of the disfigurement, as in Fullerton v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Gettysburg Foundry Specialties), 761 A.2d 201 (PA.Cmwlth. 2000). Given the subjective nature in determining the value of a scar, it is impossible for judges to rule in uniformity when awarding these benefits.
It must further be noted that the weekly benefit amount awarded on a disfigurement claim is equal to what that person would receive in weekly wage loss benefits. Therefore, a wage earner with a higher compensation rate would obviously receive a higher disfigurement award than one with lower wages for identical scarring. Unlike indemnity or wage loss benefits, an award for disfigurement benefits should not be predicated on what the individual earned prior to the work injury. If judges have the sole discretion in determining the value of the scar, pre-injury earnings should be ignored, and the value of the scar should be based on the unsightly appearance of the scar alone.
Currently, the system regarding disfigurement is unfair. It only compensates accident victims with scars above the clavicle, but other disfigurement can be just as visible to the public and humiliating. Burns, scars and marks on the torso and extremities can be more severe, extensive, stigmatizing and permanent than those on the face and neck. Currently those workers are left with no recourse.
In addition, the subjective system for determining the value and the bias toward higher wage earners makes the system unfair to workers. Lawmakers need to address this arbitrary system and create a process that provides just compensation for the permanent result of an injury suffered in the service of an employer.
Andrew F. Ruder is an associate with Pond Lehocky Stern Giordano and concentrates his practice in the area of workers' compensation litigation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readMembership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250