Today’s post comes from guest author Brody Ockander, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.
The short answer is yes, but it could be difficult to prove if it is not directly related to another workers’ compensation injury. In Nebraska, proving a pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) requires the same legal and medical causation tests as a heart attack or stroke (see Zissin v. Shanahan and Wingfield v. Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc.).
What that means is legal causation must be proved by showing that exertion or stress encountered during employment is greater than that experienced during the ordinary non-employment life. Then, it must also be proven by medical causation: i.e., show that the employment contributed in some material and substantial degree.
On the other hand, if someone develops DVT as a result of another injury caused by work, it would probably be much easier to meet the causation required to prove compensability. For example, let’s say a worker injures his knee during work and has surgery on that knee. Then, as a result of the surgery, a postoperative complication of DVT arises and eventually becomes a pulmonary embolism. In that scenario, the pulmonary embolism is clearly related to the work injury and clearly compensable.
Absent a prior injury, however, causation must be met by the standards stated above, which will be very fact intensive. An example of this scenario came up in the recent case, Wingfield v. Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc., 288 Neb. 174. In that case, a truck driver for 35 years asserted that his deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism was from sitting while driving a truck so long. The workers’ compensation court dismissed the cases, holding that the truck driver did not adequately prove legal and medical causation.
This case illustrates how difficult the causation standard is for pulmonary embolism cases that are not directly linked to a work injury. These types of cases will almost certainly require the assistance of a lawyer.