The Court of Appeals in Utah found that a worker who injured his knee was still eligible for workers’ compensation benefits, even though they determined that the way he described how he was actually injured was “physically impossible”.

Alberto Mondragon worked for JP Landscaping and suffered an injury on his first day of work, May 22, 2012, when he was pushing a wheelbarrow of gravel over an uneven surface. He slipped and the wheelbarrow tipped, and though he was able to catch himself and not fall, he felt a pop in his right knee. He told his supervisor that his knee had been caught between the two handles. His knee began to swell and the onsite WorkMed clinic physician, Dr. Britt, saw that there was no bruising but there may have been slight swelling and some tenderness. Mondragon could extend and flex his knee but felt serious pain upon trying to rotate and extend. He was diagnosed with a right knee sprain and was referred to an orthopedic specialist. Dr. Britt also put him on light-duty work but since his employer did not have a light-duty work option they fired him. He was out of work until July 15^th of that year when he found another job.

August of 2012 Mondragon requested a hearing with an administrative law judge to see if he could receive benefits for the incident. He was examined by an independent medical examiner who determined that, at most, he had a preexisting knee condition which the accident aggravated, though his own doctors said the accident caused his injury. His employer also argued that the way he said he was injured, with his knee caught between the handles, was “physically impossible”. They asked him to re-create the accident in the hearing with a wheelbarrow but he could not demonstrate how it happened. He told the judge that he was not sure how it happened but that his knee still “got caught” and he felt the pop in his knee. The ALJ determined that even though the way he was injured was not clear, he still suffered an injury at work. To determine if the accident caused his injury and subsequent knee problems the ALJ referred the case to a medical panel, who determined that yes there was a causal connection. He had suffered knee injuries in the past but they had all healed without any ongoing symptoms. The employer argued that the panel’s report should not be admitted to the case because they were relying on a description of the accident that could not have occurred. Still, the ALJ said it was an injury suffered at work and even though details might have been a little unclear, the employer was responsible for past and future bills relating to the injury.

The employer asked the Workers’ Compensation Commission to review the case. They asked the medical panel to reassess the case because the medical panel had not known the fact that Mondragon could not re-enact exactly how it happened. Even without knowing exactly how the injury occurred they still decided that his injury was caused by the accident and he would still need treatment. Therefore the Commission also upheld the ALJ’s decision that since it was a workplace accident and injury, even though the “exact mechanism of injury is somewhat unclear”, Mondragon should receive benefits. The employer asked the Court of Appeals to set aside that decision but they declined to disturb the decision.

Read the case here.