What Is That Major Contributing Cause, Anyway?: An Analysis of Major Contributing Cause and Its Application

Before a worker can get workers’ compensation benefits in Florida, they have to prove that their on-the-job injury is the main cause of their injury or death. This new rule created a lot of questions that still don’t have answers. This article looks at how this rule applies when a worker is trying to prove they deserve temporary or permanent benefits, how much evidence they need to show, and how it might affect other ways employers try to avoid paying for injuries. This article is about how workers’ compensation laws in Florida deal with preexisting conditions. If a worker with a preexisting condition is injured at work, the employer is responsible for compensation if the work injury was the main cause of the disability or need for treatment. However, if the preexisting condition was the main cause of the injury, the employer may not be responsible for the resulting disability unless the work injury also contributed to it. So, the focus is on whether the work injury is the main cause of the disability, and this can be determined once the worker reaches maximum medical improvement. The analysis looks at how much evidence is needed to prove that an injury was caused by an accident. There’s no clear definition of how much proof is needed. In a case, the court said that a claimant failed to prove that the accident was “the most preponderant cause” of her injury, but they didn’t explain what that means. It’s not clear if an injury can be compensable if the accident is only partly responsible for it, or if it must be mostly responsible.

Also, recent changes to the law may have changed the way liability is divided when an unrelated cause contributes to a disability. In a previous case, the court created a test to determine when an employer can divide the responsibility for a disability between the accident and a pre-existing condition. If someone already had a medical condition before they got hurt at work, the employer might only have to pay for the part of their injury that was caused by the work accident. This only applies once the person has gotten as better as they can. It’s important to understand that this only applies to the resulting disability after the person has gotten as better as they can. It doesn’t apply to temporary disability or medical benefits before that. It’s also important to look at whether the work accident was the most important reason for the person needing treatment or being disabled. The person hurt at work will say that the work accident made their existing condition worse, no matter if they needed treatment or were disabled. The employer will say we should look at the person’s whole condition. They will say that if it weren’t for the preexisting condition, the person might not have needed treatment, so the most important reason for the injury is the preexisting condition. If we look at the overall condition, the employer might not have to pay for any medical or money benefits. In the case of J&J Enterprises v. Oweis, a worker got hurt on the job and claimed it made their existing condition worse. The employer argued that the job wasn’t the main cause of the injury. But the court ruled in favor of the worker, saying that as long as the job made the condition worse, they should get benefits. The law says that the job only needs to be the main cause of the injury until the worker gets better. The cases of Griffith and Olsten Staffing Services show that once a person reaches maximum medical improvement, the focus shifts to what caused the overall disability, rather than what caused a temporary aggravation. These cases have set a new framework for how the major contributing cause standard is applied in workers’ compensation cases. It’s important to consider maximum medical improvement when determining what caused the disability and the need for ongoing medical treatment. To make things more complicated, we have to look at the numbers in the quantitative analysis of the main cause of the industrial accident. Does MCC mean the accident has to be at least 51 percent responsible for the result, or just more responsible than any other cause? The First DCA may have given us an answer in Hak, saying MCC means “the most preponderant cause.” This suggests that the industrial accident must be at least 51 percent responsible, but until the First DCA clearly says so, this term will continue to be debated in court. MCC (Major Contributing Cause) is a term used in workers’ compensation cases to determine who is responsible for an industrial accident. But it’s not as simple as it sounds. The key question is whether an employer can reduce their liability for a disability by blaming it on preexisting conditions. If the accident is at least 51 percent responsible, can the employer still avoid some of the blame for the disability? And if there are multiple causes for the disability, how do we decide which one is the most responsible? This is a tricky situation that hasn’t been clearly answered yet. When you combine quantitative (numbers) and qualitative (qualities) analysis, things can get confusing. Before doctors say you’re as good as you’ll get, the question is “what’s the main cause of a temporary disability?” When you mix in the numbers, the result usually won’t change. The work accident will be what caused the temporary disability, so you’ll get disability pay and medical treatment.

But things get trickier when you look at how the disability or need for treatment continues after you’re as good as you’ll get. If the work accident only caused 49% of the problem, you might not get any more benefits. That doesn’t seem fair, does it? Where would you go for help with lost wages and medical bills? But if the work accident is at least 51% responsible, the employer has to take care of the whole problem. Can the employer say they’re only partly to blame because of a preexisting condition? This question assumes that the main cause didn’t replace blaming a little bit of everyone instead of all or nothing. Apportionment is the idea that if someone is injured at work but already had a disability, the employer may not be responsible for the full extent of the injury. For example, if the work injury is only 40% responsible for the disability, the employer may only have to pay for 40% of the medical bills and lost wages.

However, there’s a new rule called “Major Contributing Cause” which could change the way apportionment works. It might make it harder for injured workers to get the full amount of compensation they need. This new rule could have a big impact on workers’ rights and how workplace injuries are handled in the future. In simple terms, new case law has made it difficult for injured workers to receive permanent benefits after they have recovered as much as they can from their injuries. The main issue is whether the work accident is the main cause of the disability. If it is, the employer has to pay benefits. If it’s not, the injured worker gets nothing. But, even if the work accident is found to be the main cause, the employer can still argue that they only have to pay for part of the disability, not all of it. This means the employer can avoid paying full benefits even if they are found to be at fault. This creates a situation where the employer has little to lose by arguing that they are only partly responsible for the injury. In simple terms, this article discusses how the law applies to workers who have a preexisting condition and then have an accident at work that makes it worse. It explains that the accident has to be the main cause of the worsening condition in order for the worker to receive benefits. Once the worker reaches the most they can get better, the law looks at how disabled they are because of the accident. This means that the worker can get benefits for their disability if the accident is the main cause of it. Overall, this article provides a new way of looking at how the law applies to workers with preexisting conditions who have accidents at work. The MCC analysis focuses on figuring out who is mostly responsible for a work-related injury. If the injury is at least 51 percent the employer’s fault, they are liable. But if the injury is only 40 percent the employer’s fault and two other causes are 30 percent each, it’s not clear who is most responsible. There might be a change in the law that gets rid of the idea of splitting the blame between different causes. Two lawyers wrote this article and they think that the change might make it harder for injured workers to get the compensation they deserve.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/what-is-that-major-contributing-cause-anyway-an-analysis-of-major-contributing-cause-and-its-application/