Workers Compensation Settlement Pursued for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome*

This is an appeal from a decision of the Workers Compensation Board, filed October 2, 2006, which ruled that liability shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases pursuant to Workers Compensation Law.

On October 27, 1993, Wilma Roget injured her right hand and thumb at work while opening a door that was being pushed from the other side. She applied for and received workers comp benefits, including a 12.5% loss-of-use award as a workers compensation settlement.

In June 1999, the case was reopened and the claim was amended to include right carpal tunnel syndrome. In addition to this claim, Roget sustained other work-related injuries for which she also filed claims pursuing a workers compensation settlement.

In September 2003, following a further hearing, a Workers Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter Judge) closed the case with respect to the claim for Roget's right hand injury, and found that no further action was planned at that time.

In May 2006, the case was reopened under the case number assigned to the claim involving Roget's right hand injury, but issues pertaining to claims concerning Roget's other work-related injuries were considered by the Judge as well.

At the hearing, one of the issues raised was the liability of the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers Comp Law with respect to the workers compensation settlement involving Roget's right hand injury. The Judge concluded that Workers Compensation Law was applicable and that liability had shifted to the Special Fund. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision, resulting in this appeal by the Special Fund.

This court agreed with the Special Fund's argument that the Board failed to provide a rational explanation for failing to follow its own precedent as set out in another case.

In that case, the Board reversed the Judge's decision that Workers Comp liability applied, finding "the case was improperly reopened and placed on the calendar with several traveling files and that the instant file should have remained closed in that there is no claim being made for awards or medical treatment."

Because of the substantial similarity between the facts in the other case and this case, the court remitted to the Board for the appropriate explanation.

It was ordered by the court that the decision be reversed and the matter remitted to the Workers Compensation Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Court's decision.