Idaho Law Blog
On October 8, 2012, Richard Job, M.D. was working as an internal medicine doctor and primary care physician for DRNE Clinic/Heritage Health. On June 17, 2013 Dr. Job presented to Dr. Patrick Mullen complaining of sudden onset right thumb pain. Eventually, the infection was determined to be caused by methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. When asked as to a possible source of the infection, Dr. Job told Dr. Mullen that the only thing that came to mind was that his cat had scratched him on his right hand a few weeks previous. The infection spread throughout the claimant’s body.
The widely disseminated MRSA infection had by the time of the hearing resulted in numerous surgeries including multiple hand and wrist, surgeries to clean out the infection, multiple surgeries to Dr. Job’s back and shoulder, and the removal of Dr. Job’s previously installed artificial hip joint. Dr. Job was placed on IV antibiotics for suppressive therapy of his incurable MRSA infection and will remain so for the rest of his life. Dr. Job also had suffered two strokes that were arguably related to his MRSA infection. Strokes left him unable to effectively communicate. In fact, Dr. Job was not even able to attend the hearing in the matter due to his health condition, including a second stroke. But, through his attorney Steven Nemec, Dr. Job had hired a number of physicians to testify in his behalf.
The claim for workers’ compensation benefits was made by Dr. Job under the Occupational Disease Statute, contained in Idaho Code Section 72-102 (Subsection 22, Subsection a). Dr. Job, in pursuing an occupational disease claim, had the burden of proof to a reasonable degree of medical probability that a causal connection between the condition for which compensation is claimed and the occupational exposure led to his contracting of the MRSA. “Probable” is defined as “having more evidence for than against”.
The threshold issue in Dr. Job’s case was whether he had proven that he had contracted the MRSA infection while in the course and scope of his employment as a physician. In the September 23, 2016 decision, the Commission walked through the history of the MRSA infection and then identified certain segments of society that are especially at risk for contracting MRSA. After hearing all of the medical testimony from a variety of infectious disease experts, the Commission found that there was nothing in the record documenting where the MRSA infection actually came from. The Commission theorized that the MRSA could have come from the cat’s nails. It could have been carried by the claimant for a number of years and then entered his bloodstream as he rubbed his nose with his open wounded right hand. There was no direct evidence that proved causation.
The takeaway from this decision is that the Commission seems to want to hear direct evidence as to time and place a person is infected with the MRSA infection. In other words, it appears that the only way that you’re going to be able to prove a MRSA infection claim is by proving a specific accident where you specifically contracted the infection. Working in a high risk occupation doesn’t appear like it will carry the day as to proving out the compensability of a MRSA infection Idaho Workers’ Compensation claim.
This website includes general information about legal issues and developments in the law. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and must not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You need to contact a lawyer for advice on specific legal issues.