BCM Proves Janitor Who Was Suspended for Job Performance Did Not Suffer an Accident

Daniel Cody recently tried the case of Thomas Dorian v. Ridgeland School District 122 on Petitioner's Request for Hearing. The main issue in the case was whether there was an accident under the Act while petitioner was employed by Respondent. The alleged injury was a mesh repaired hernia with 6 weeks lost time and approximately $19,000 in medical bills.

The petitioner alleged that he was emptying trash on the night before he was advised of his suspension for job performance. He admitted to meeting with two school representatives and a union representative the day after the alleged event to discuss his suspension and he made no mention of the work injury. The school representatives and union representative, under subpoena, testified on behalf of the Respondent that the petitioner did not advise the Respondent of the alleged lifting injury during the suspension meeting. The petitioner admitted on cross examination to authoring an email to the school principal about three weeks after the alleged event, but before the termination hearing, that he needed unpaid sick leave to have surgery for the hernia. The email made no mention of a work event.

The medical records showed that the petitioner did seek treatment for the hernia about two weeks after the alleged event but reported that he had a pre-existing hernia for about two to three years which he claimed he aggravated while lifting. The timelines in the records did not correspond with petitioner's allegations that the hernia had flared a week before the appointment which would have been a week after petitioner's last day of employment. Neither treating doctor mentioned any work event in their records.

The arbitrator held that the petitioner was not credible and pointed out the inconsistencies between the testimony and the medical records in support of a finding of no accident and denying all compensation. The Arbitrator further relied on petitioner's failure to notify his superiors, which were called as witnesses for Respondent, until much later of the event despite opportunities to do so.

This matter is subject to review by the Commission.