Frank tore the rotator cuff in his right shoulder in a workplace accident last June. In mid-August, his employer’s workers’ compensation insurance company finally accepted his claim and authorized the surgery his orthopaedic surgeon had recommended weeks earlier. The surgery went well, and after four weeks in a sling and six weeks of physical therapy, Frank was ready to return to work. When he did so, however, he couldn’t perform his usual job duties because his left shoulder was killing him. Frank actually began noticing some left shoulder pain before his surgery and during his recovery time, when he had to use his left arm to compensate for the loss of use of his right arm. This was compounded by the fact that Frank is right-handed, so his left arm was performing a lot of functions it normally never did. Frank’s doctor quickly determined that he was suffering from overuse syndrome. When a limb is injured and rendered disabled, the opposite limb picks up the slack and often overcompensates for the temporary loss of use in the injured limb. This can lead to equally disabling problems in the previously healthy limb. Frank’s doctor knew what to do, but the insurance company wouldn’t authorize his treatment. The adjuster took the position that since Frank only injured his right shoulder in the accident, she wasn’t responsible for his left shoulder problems. Was she right?
Happily, no. Frank’s situation presents the classic example of what the law calls a “compensable consequence.”
When a primary injury under the Workmen's Compensation Act is shown to have arisen out of the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows from the injury is compensable if it is a direct and natural result of a primary injury.
* * *
In other words, where a causal connection between the initial compensable injury and the subsequent injury is established, the doctrine of compensable consequences extends the coverage of the Workers' Compensation Act to the subsequent injury because the subsequent injury ‘is treated as if it occurred in the course of and arising out of the employee's employment.’
Leonard v. Arnold, 218 Va. 210, 214, 237 S.E.2d 97, ___ (1977).
Frank’s left shoulder problems are deemed a change in condition for which workers’ compensation coverage applies. His required treatments and resulting wage loss are the workers’ compensation insurance company’s responsibility.