The remaining defense relief available to the Fund is contained in §9- 610, wh ich essentially gives the Fund, as well as Employers and Insurers, a credit for disability retirement benefits received by public employees. IV. EFFECTIVE USE OF THE SUBSEQUENT INJURY FUND Throughout the case law there are many references to the purpose of the Fund, which is to encourage employers to hire employees with pre-existing impairments. It is generally more effective to use the Fund as one of several defense tools rather than as a single weapon. Sometimes insurance carriers become so interested in trying to establish Fund liability that they fail to defend their portion of the case. For example, in the case of a Claimant with back disability due to an accident and a pre- existing neck disability, the primary concern of the defense should be to mitigate the amount of disability due to the back injury rather than to highlight the amount of pre-existing neck disability. Some Commissioners have wondered aloud why an insurance company is defending a back claim by showing that there is a prior neck problem. Generally speaking, most Commissioners are not concerned with relatively minor pre-existing impairments. The appendix operation two years ago, the hernia operation ten years ago and even the 15% of the leg award in 1975 are generally not the types of pre -existing impairments that will create or contribute to Fund liability. Commissioners are interested in hearing about serious issues such as pre-existing heart attacks, congenital conditions, major surgeries, etc.; time spent on getting information on these types of impairments will probably be rewarded. The Commissioners will want to know how these pre-existing conditions were physically affecting the Claimant right before the current accidental injury. The Commission does not want to hear about the pain lea ding up to the surgery that occurred 15 years ago. It
6
Powered by FlippingBook