Illniois Mechanic secures benefits for staph infection after more than 6 months.
The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission awarded benefits to a worker who suffered burns to 10 percent of his body in a work accident and susequently developed a staph infection.
Case name: Krems v. Ethyl Petroleum Addititives, 17 ILWCLB 84 (Ill.W.C.Comm.2009).
Krems, a general mechanic, sustained burns to his abdomen and both arms in a work accident. He was diagnosed with first- and second - degree burns to 10 percent of his body. Evidence indicated that Krems was a diabetic. He underwent two surgeries to clean the wounds and for skin grafts. More than six months after the accident, Krems returned to his doctor with a staph infection in the left elbow. He was hospitalized and treated with antibiotics. At issue was whether Krems' staph infection was causally connected to his work accident. The employer's examing doctor testified that Krems was suffering from septic olecranon bursitis and opined there was no relationship between the development of the condition and Krems' work accident. However, the doctor admitted that Krems diabetic condition made him more susceptible to the development of a staph infection after his work injuries. Based upon the testimony of Krems and the testifying doctors, along with the medical records, the arbitrator found Krems' work accident "might have been or could have been" a cause or one of the causes of the staph infection. Upon review, the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed and adopted the arbitrator's decision.
Krems testified he developed blister-like areas where the graft was taken and where the grafts were applied. Krems' doctor stated that Krems likely had some olecranon bursal cysts and that because of a crack in the skin, normal staph bacteria could have invaded his body. Due to Krems' diabetes, this could have become super-infected and developed into an abscess.
Although the employer's examining doctor testified it was impossible for there to be a relationship between the work injury and the development of the staph infeciton, the doctor admitted he had no specific opinion regarding the length of time an individual could become colonized with a staph bacteria and the time the infection might become symptomatic. As the doctor could not identify a specific timetable from colonization to infection, the arbitrator found that more than six months between the work injury and the diagnosis of the staph infection was not such an extravagant length of time as to sever a causal connection.
