What Do You Think?
Rochester, NY – The labyrinthine realm of workers’ compensation often finds itself ensnared in the webs of convoluted medical assessments, chronic health histories, and the precise circumstances surrounding the unfortunate demise of an employee. The heart-wrenching case of a bartender, who succumbed to a sudden cardiac arrest after a grueling night at a music festival, serves as a poignant reminder of this complexity.
The tragic event unfolded in the early morning hours of May 19, 2018, after the man, exhausted from juggling two demanding jobs, fell into a deep sleep — one that would ultimately lead to his untimely death.
Despite the heartache, the workers’ compensation board dismissed his widow’s claim, asserting that a causal link between the man’s death and his employment was absent. But one must ponder: Did the burdens of his labor weigh heavily upon his heart?
The festival, spanning from May 10 to May 18, demanded an exhausting schedule from him; an office job from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. followed by late-night shifts at the festival until 11 p.m. This relentless rhythm bore down on him. On May 17, he conveyed to his wife discomfort—pain throbbed in his left shoulder and chest. The day following, he appeared alarmingly fatigued and pale as he moved his arm, a silent herald of the doom that awaited.
His last conversation with his wife was around 10:30 p.m. on May 18, as he continued to float through the evening in the lively festival atmosphere. Hours later, in the stillness of the early morning, he would encounter the grim finality of cardiac arrest.
Medical records unveiled a tableau of health struggles: obesity, tobacco use, neglect of routine medical care—a perfect storm of risk factors culminating in his passing. The autopsy echoed this narrative, revealing hypertensive and arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with morbid obesity significantly contributing to his death.
The widow’s internal medicine consultant posited that heavy lifting at the festival precipitated the demise, noting he had purportedly lifted close to 3,385 pounds during his final shift. Yet, colleagues painting an altogether different picture—one of light bartending duties rather than the Herculean feats suggested.
Further complicating matters, the workers’ compensation carrier’s independent consultant postulated a robust diagnosis of pre-existing coronary artery disease, invariant to the physical exertions of his work.
Was the employee’s widow entitled to benefits?
A. Yes: The widow’s consultant avers a definitive link between the heavy lifting and the eventual death.
B. No: Testimonies from coworkers and the carrier’s consultant lean heavily toward a verdict of death brought on by chronic cardiovascular afflictions.
Choosing option B aligns with the ruling of Rizzo v. The Springut Group, Inc., where the court affirmed the workers’ compensation board’s conclusion that the death was unrelated to his employment duties.
The court cast doubt on the claims of the consultant, noting that the assertions of heavy lifting were contradicted by coworkers’ accounts indicating a lifestyle of lighter responsibilities. “[S]everal of decedent’s coworkers … revealed that decedent principally worked as a bartender … which consisted of light-duty work,” the court articulated, succinctly summing the divergence of testimonies.
Moreover, the timing of his death—happening in sleep, hours after leaving work—also nudged the scales of consideration towards a diagnosis of natural cardiovascular disease rather than a sudden strain-induced incident. Symptoms had manifested days prior to his passing, casting further shadows on the notion that his workload precipitated his tragic end.
Alas, the court upheld the board’s denial of his widow’s claim, leaving us to reflect: In the face of medical history and workplace realities, where does the truth lie?
