By Joseph Mulvey
In Patricia Dragovan, Widow of Thomas Dragovan (deceased) v. Western Utility Contractors, Inc. 06 IL. W.C. 31304 (2009), the Commission distinguishes a prior Supreme Court ruling outlining the applicable test for causal connection in heart attack cases.
The Supreme Court case, Twice Over Clean, Inc. v. The Industrial Comm’n et al. 241 Ill. 2d 403 (2005) created a very loose standard for proving a causal connection between employment and heart attacks. Essentially, a heart attack is compensable if the arbitrator can infer that the occupational activity contributed to the disabling condition.
The specific issue dealt with in both of these cases is the causal connection between physical exertion and a heart attack suffered by an employee with pre-existing and unrelated arterial blockage. In the Twice Over Cleancase, evidence showed that Petitioner’s right coronary artery was 90% blocked at the time of the accident and that Petitioner was “basically a heart attack waiting to happen.”
Despite the pre-existing risk factors, and medical testimony showing that Petitioner could have suffered a heart attack at any time, regardless of his level of exertion, the Supreme Court found the claim to be compensable. Their reasoning explicitly disavows what had been known as the “normal daily activity” exception, i.e. that an accident arising from a physical condition that has deteriorated to the point that the condition of ill-being could have been produced by normaldaily activity is not compensable.
The Supreme Court found that there was competent medical evidence to show that the exertion preceding the heart attack was sufficient to aggravate the pre-existing condition and that the ensuing attack was therefore work-related.
In Dragovan, the Commission distinguished the Twice Over Cleanruling by focusing on the lower level of exertion leading to the heart attack. Whereas the petitioner in the Twice Over Cleancase had been carrying 40-50 lb. bags of asbestos in extremely cold conditions, the petitioner in Dragovanhad been shoveling and clearing loose soil for a relatively short amount of time in temperate conditions.
Ultimately, the distinction rests on a slim factual basis and seems to ignore the Supreme Court’s clear directive that medical evidence showing that the activity may have aggravated or exacerbated the underlying condition is sufficient to show a causal connection between the work activity and the heart attack.
Practice Tip
This decision is noteworthy for employers and offers a strong argument that heart attacks occurring during work hours are not per-se related to the employment. It is important in such cases to mine the factual record for details surrounding the accident itself, particularly with respect to the environmental conditions and the level of work preceding the heart attack.
Post Provided by Bryce Downey & Lenkov LLC. Bryce Downey & Lenkov is a firm of experienced business counselors and accomplished trial lawyers who deliver service, success and satisfaction. They exceed clients’ expectations while providing the highest caliber of service in a wide range of practice areas. With offices in Chicago, Oak Brook, Merrillville, IN, Memphis and Atlanta and attorneys licensed in multiple states, Bryce Downey & Lenkovis able to serve its clients’ needs with a regional concentration while maintaining a national practice.
