This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Worker, employed as an administrative assistant, began experiencing arm pain in May 2006, which worsened over time. Her duties included typing, filing, and other administrative tasks. In August 2006, she took a week off work due to the pain, which diminished during her time off. She sought medical help in December 2006 and was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. Surgeries were performed on both arms in February 2007. The Worker claimed she did not associate her condition with her job until informed by her healthcare provider in early 2007 (paras 1, 5-6, 9, 23, 28-29, 32).
Procedural History
- Workers’ Compensation Administration: The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied the Worker’s claim for benefits, finding that she failed to provide timely notice of her work-related injury (headnotes, paras 1, 33-34).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Worker): Argued that she did not know or could not have reasonably known her injury was work-related until informed by her healthcare provider in early 2007. She also contended that the Employer’s failure to provide required reporting forms with the posted notice extended the notice period from 15 to 60 days. Additionally, she claimed her belief that her sleep posture caused her condition was reasonable (paras 1, 6, 32, 33).
- Appellees (Employer and Insurer): Asserted that the Worker knew or should have known her injury was work-related as early as August 2006, based on her symptoms and their aggravation during work activities. They argued that the Worker failed to provide timely notice of her injury as required by law (paras 1, 6, 32-33).
Legal Issues
- Did the Worker know or should she have known that her injury was work-related in August 2006?
- Does the Employer’s failure to provide reporting forms with the posted notice extend the notice period under Section 52-1-29(C)?
- Was there substantial evidence to support the WCJ’s finding that the Worker knew or should have known her injury was work-related before being informed by her healthcare provider?
- Was it unreasonable for the Worker to believe her sleep posture caused her condition?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the WCJ’s decision, holding that the Worker knew or should have known her injury was work-related in August 2006 and that her notice to the Employer in March 2007 was untimely (paras 1, 6, 33-34).
Reasons
Per Robles J. (Bustamante and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
The Court upheld the WCJ’s findings that the Worker knew or should have known her injury was work-related in August 2006, based on her testimony that her symptoms worsened during work activities and improved during her week off. The WCJ reasonably concluded that the Worker’s failure to associate her condition with her job until 2007 was not credible, given her awareness of the connection between her symptoms and work activities (paras 6, 28-29, 32).
The Court rejected the Worker’s argument that the Employer’s failure to provide reporting forms with the posted notice extended the notice period. Since the Worker’s notice in March 2007 was untimely even under the extended 60-day period, the issue was moot (paras 6, 33-34).
The Court found substantial evidence supported the WCJ’s conclusion that the Worker knew or should have known her injury was work-related in August 2006. The Worker’s testimony about her symptoms and their connection to work activities was sufficient to impute knowledge of a compensable injury, even without a formal medical diagnosis (paras 6, 28-29, 32).
The Court also held that the WCJ reasonably found it was not credible for the Worker to believe her sleep posture caused her condition, given her awareness of the aggravation of symptoms during work activities (paras 6, 32).