by KPMLAW | Apr 24, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
KPM LAW is honored to have two of its attorneys selected to the 2016 Virginia Super Lawyers list, as well as an attorney selected to the 2016 Virginia Rising Stars list. Partners Claire Carr and Brian Cafritz, both of the Richmond office, have been named to the 2016 Virginia Super Lawyers list, while Rachel Riordan, also a partner in the Richmond office, has been named to the 2016 Virginia Rising Star list for a second time. Super Lawyers, a part of Thompson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of recognition and professional achievement. Super Lawyers utilizes a patented and multiphasic selection process that includes peer nominations, evaluations, and independent research by Super Lawyers. The Super Lawyers List recognizes no more than 5% of Virginia attorneys while the Rising Star list recognizes no more than 2.5%. Please join us in congratulating Claire, Brian and Rachel on their achievements in the...
by KPMLAW | Nov 16, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Christopher R. Wilson, Esq. Edited by Rachel A. Riordan, Esq. Consider this scenario: while at work a man slips and falls on a wet floor, breaking his arm. In the process, he also chips his dentures, breaks his eyeglasses, and damages a spinal cord stimulator used to treat pre-existing back pain. Which of these injuries or damages is compensable under the Virginia Worker’s Compensation Act? You’re probably very familiar with Virginia’s rules on the compensability of physical injuries, but what about other items damaged in a compensable accident—how do you determine which items the employer has to pay for? The Virginia Worker’s Compensation Commission recently addressed this issue in a case called Quiroz v. Prince William County Schools, JCN VA 00000647619 (Oct. 27, 2014). In Quiroz, just like in the example above, the claimant slipped and fell at work, suffering several compensable injuries. Also damaged in the fall, however, was the claimant’s spinal cord stimulator, which doctors had surgically implanted years earlier to treat failed back syndrome. At the evidentiary hearing, the claimant argued that the employer should be held responsible for repairing or replacing the spinal cord stimulator in addition to the medical treatment for the physical injuries. Virginia Code §65.2-603(A)(2) provides that employers: shall repair, if repairable, or replace dentures, artificial limbs, or other prosthetic or orthotic devices damaged in an accident otherwise compensable under worker’s compensation . . . . The claimant relied on this section to argue that a spinal cord stimulator qualified as a “prosthetic or orthotic device” because it “reduce[d] pain in order to improve the functionality of the spine.” Both...
