In an August 2006 ruling, Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled that the claimant in the case of Michael G. Blakeslee Jr. vs. Platt Brothers & Co, who was injured when co-workers tried to help during a seizure, is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. Typically, workplace injuries caused by a seizure wouldn't be eligible for compensation because the injuries arise from the medical condition itself and not from conditions in the work area. In the Blakeslee case, the claimant received two dislocated shoulders on February 13, 2002, when three co-workers tried to restrain him during his seizure. He had fallen near a large steel scale, and then started flailing his arms and legs as he regained consciousness.
The claimant filed a workers' compensation claim contending that because the actual injury resulted from the restraint, and not the seizure itself, the shoulder injuries should be covered. The claimant argued that an injury received during the course of employment is eligible for compensation even if infirmity due to disease originally set in motion the final cause of the injury. The claimant also asserted that an injury inflicted by a co-employee is eligible for compensation, unless the injured employee engages in unauthorized behavior or the injury is the result of an intentional assault.
Initially, a workers' compensation commissioner decided that Blakeslee was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits. The commissioner determined that the claimant's injuries resulted from a chain of events set off by a grand mal seizure unrelated to his employment. A workers' compensation review board agreed with the finding. The review board stated that there is a prerequisite requirement for eligibility for compensation, which the claimant overlooked. The cause of the injury must arise out of the employment and work conditions must be the legal cause of the injury. The review board contended that the claimant's seizure caused the need for first aid, which caused the injury. There was no element of the claimant's employment involved.
Five out of seven Supreme Court justices reversed the board's ruling. They were not persuaded by the argument posed by Platt Brothers, and the employer's insurer, Wausau Insurance Co., that finding for the defendant would be in direct opposition to public policy because it would prevent employees from assisting co-workers in future medical emergencies. The majority noted that the co-workers restrained Blakeslee to keep him from harming other employees as well as himself. Their actions benefited the employer. The action was directly related to the employment and would therefore be eligible for compensation.
The two dissenting justices argued that the Supreme Court should not have accepted review of the case.