Unforseen risks, personal risks, and neutral risks.

Neutral risks and personal risks, and ideopathic risks

Risks distinctly associated with the employment, personal risks, and neutral risks

Mixed risks, neutral risks and unforseen risks.

·  Common law defenses include:

Assumption of risk

Contributory negligence

he Doctrine of Respondent Superior

A and B only

All of the above.

·  in most states, the definition of “injury” includes psychological injuries only when:

Psychological injuries are never compensable

hey are directly a result of a physical injury

They are severe and documented by a competent medical provider

They are stress-related to a significant incident at work, such as seeing someone get killed at work

·  Most 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.

·  idiopathic 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

·  An 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 bullet?

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.

·  Judge 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

I

·  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

Neutral risks and personal risks, and ideopathic risks.