Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
OSHA390 Aggravation of Pre-Existing Condition Discussion
Question:
Carpenter Mike files a repetitive trauma claim for a shoulder injury. You are the Safety director at your company and you heard through the Grapevine that Mike is also the star pitcher for “the carpenters” softball team. What types of investigations might you do in house to assist your claims adjuster? Would or could this fall into an aggravation of a pre- existing condition? What factors might you look at before the decision is made to deny or accept this case as compensable?
POST 1
First:I would conduct a full investigation that included Carpenter Mike’s job description as well as any recent or new JSA’s in relation to his work. I would conduct task observations that Mike would have normally performed that could give me further insights into Mike’s claim. Also during my investigation, I would question some of Mike’s co-workers to see if he had previously made any comments to his shoulder injury and if they in fact arouse from and in the course of employment. During my investigations, I would be documenting the facts and creating a chronological order of events that lead to the claim. I would also reach out to Mike to attempt to determine a time and place of the injury while also asking questions about both work tasks he was performing and questions about him playing softball. I would attempt to reach out to some of his teammates and inquire on information such as last game played, positions Mike played, and if anything happened that may have been a contributing factor to the injury. I would then check Mike’s personnel file for any past incidents reports that may have included a shoulder injury and what treatment he received if applicable. I would within my legal abilities try an obtain medical records past and present in attempt to determine if this was a pre-existing condition. Most likely I think Mike would have to request that information to turn in because of HIPPA laws and without a subpoena. In conclusion, I would exhaust all efforts to better determines if this was in fact a work-related case.Depending on the investigation findings this case could be an aggravation of an pre-existing injury. Compensation for these claims can be very tricky and difficult. If there was a pre-existing condition, this would be discovered when medical records or internal records are obtained and reviewed. To my knowledge, if the shoulder injury was personal in nature and determined through records to not be work related it would not be compensable.Many of the factors I would consider in accepting or denying this case was given in my first paragraph. But in short, I would consider what Mike was doing at the time of the alleged injury as well as prior to and if he had mentioned anything to any of his co-workers. Another thing I would factor is any past incidents reported by Mike at our company as well as his play in softball.
POST 2
Second:The first place to start would be to determine the facts. Facts would be gathered by conducting interviews (both with Mike and with co-workers who function in a similar role), reviewing job functions and job descriptions. Some interview questions I would ask of Mike would be when he first noticed pain, what he was doing when he started to feel the pain, any remedies that he sought out after noticing the pain. As part of interviewing Mike’s co workers I would try to determine whether there was an acute event or if the injury could be the result of chronic use. By reviewing the job description I would hope to gather a good indication of the various job responsibilities and how they would translate to a potential industry. I would apply a similar action to interviewing other member’s of the softball team, minus looking at a job description. I would interview Mike and ask him if he experienced any acute pain while pitching for the softball team, and likewise ask the other members of the softball team if they noticed anything that would indicate Mike had an injury (if they were willing to discuss it).Repetitive trauma cases are difficult to say the least. Given the outside activity (softball pitching) and the job itself (carpenter) there is certainly room to argue that this would be both aggravation of a pre-existing condition and also an injury that “arose out of” and “in the course of” employment. Establishing the time line of reports of injury and medical evaluations can go a long way in determining if the injury came from an acute event or from chronic use.
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
OSHA390 Aggravation of Pre-Existing Condition Discussion
|
OSHA390 Aggravation of Pre-Existing Condition Discussion