claims for on-premises injuries fall within one of two general categories
Injuries sustained while performing one’s appointed tasks and
self inflicted injuries
njuries caused by the negligence of the employee and
situations where a fellow employee caused the risk or hazard.
Self inflicted injuries and situations where a fellow employee
created a situation that contributed to the injury
Injuries while performing one’s tasks and injuries while
engaged in other incident activities not directly involved with performing
those appointed tasks.
falls, like unexplained falls, are based on situations where that facts are
totally unknown and thus, are not compensable.
True or false
Multiple choice questions
independent medical examination is useful only when we want to have an
unbiased opinion on which of the following elements of an alleged work injury.
Verification of a worker injury.
Medical necessity of treatment.
Modification of worker duties and activities as required by
the level of injury sustained.
Extent or degree of permanent as compared to temporary
impairment to worker
All the above
· What is
true of the proximate cause test?
It is one of the 5 lines of interpretation of the “arising out
of” the employment test of compensability.
The test requires that the harms be foreseeable
Both A and B
· If we
consider the 3 categories of risk, personal, neutral and occupational, and
consider that there are only two places where this risk may fall, i.e.,
either on the employee or the employer, then why should the employer pay for
situations where, for example, the employee is hit and injured by a stray
The employer should pay because the employer should pay.
he employer should not pay because there was no increased risk
to the employee.
The employer should not pay because it is absolutely unfair.
The employer should pay because there are only two places
where the risk may fall, and the positional risk doctrine would suggest that
this is the correct analysis.
Cardoza is best known for ??
His rule on dual purpose trips
His theory on compensability.
This doctrine on social and recreational activities.
All the above
· if an
employee had only been working one week, they should not be able to claim a
repetitive trauma injury, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, because that
condition requires an injury to occur over time and one week is not enough.
The counter argument is;
There is no counter argument because this is correct
That if the person already had carpal tunnel syndrome and lied
about it, then they should be fired.
t is irrelevant because they were not injured on the job.
It is irrelevant because if they meet the 2 prong test of
compensability, then how long it takes is irrelevant