AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 a housekeeper, experienced a pull in her back and pain radiating down her left leg while performing her duties on July 3, 2010. Despite the pain, she completed her shift and worked the following day. After seeking medical attention on July 6, 2010, she was diagnosed with acute back pain and placed on restrictions, which led to her being removed from the work schedule. The Worker initially did not report her injury as work-related but, after an MRI revealed a herniated disc, she notified her Employer of the work-related injury on July 27, 2010.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the delay in notifying the Employer was permissible under the latent injury doctrine due to uncertainty about the injury's extent and its causal relationship to her job.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker's delay in notifying the Employer of her injury was permissible under the latent injury doctrine.

Disposition

• The Workers’ Compensation Judge's determination that the Worker failed to provide timely notice to her Employer, thereby barring her claim for workers' compensation benefits, was affirmed.

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The Court held that the Worker was required to notify her Employer within fifteen days of becoming aware or should have become aware of a work-related injury. The Court found that substantial evidence supported the Workers’ Compensation Judge's determination that the Worker should have been aware of the compensable nature of her injury by the time she was taken off the work schedule, which was within three days of the injury. The Court concluded that the Worker's injury was immediately identifiable and disabling, thus not fitting the typical application of the latent injury doctrine. The Worker's inability to continue working and the immediate pain and restrictions following the injury should have alerted her to the compensable nature of her injury, making the notice given on July 27, 2010, untimely.