Injured Mechanic Granted Full Disability Despite Diabetes Dispute
- The Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims awarded permanent total disability benefits on July 24 to a mechanic left wheelchair-bound after a 2018 workplace crush injury, siding with his treating surgeon over the employer’s disputed diabetes theory.
- The worker, a longtime shop foreman and lead diesel mechanic at trucking firm Titan Transfer, suffered a shattered pelvic ring and thigh bone with nerve damage in his legs after a crush injury that required six surgeries. He later injured both shoulders from pushing a manual wheelchair.
- Titan Transfer accepted the fractures and shoulder injuries but disputed that nerve damage and foot-and-ankle contractures were work-related, arguing they stemmed from the worker’s preexisting diabetes rather than the accident.
- The court favored the treating orthopedic surgeon and an independent evaluator, who found the work injury was more than half the cause of a 48% impairment, over the employer’s examiner, who spent only 15 to 20 minutes examining the worker and relied on inaccurate assumptions about his mobility, according to court records.
- The ruling awarded 542 weeks of benefits totaling $407,000, plus a $75,112 lump sum for attorney’s fees and ongoing medical care, on top of $212,882.43 the employer had already advanced.
Why the Creator Economy May Be Heading for Its Uber Moment
- A recent federal court ruling in New Jersey found that creators on a streaming platform qualified as independent contractors under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s economic realities test, but as employees under New Jersey’s stricter ABC Test, raising questions about whether digital platforms are facing gig-economy-style scrutiny.
- The ruling hinges on “Prong B” of the ABC Test, which asks whether work falls outside a company’s usual place of business; the court suggested that a company’s “place of business” can include the digital platform itself, not just physical locations like offices or warehouses.
- Brittany Lamb, associate general counsel at People 2.0, says the case echoes the years-long debate over Uber’s business model, where regulators examined whether the company’s core business was transportation rather than simply connecting riders and drivers through technology.
- The decision highlights a growing compliance patchwork: workers can be classified differently under federal versus state law, and businesses engaging contractors, freelancers, or creators across multiple jurisdictions may need to comply with the strictest applicable state standard, such as New Jersey’s or California’s.
- California’s Proposition 22, which classifies app-based drivers as independent contractors while granting some employment-like benefits, is cited as one example of a hybrid middle-ground approach that may inform how other jurisdictions handle digital-platform work going forward.