In 2013, Ms. B came to my law firm in search of help with her workers' compensation claim. She had worked for the same company for several years. Unfortunately, the nature of her work resulted in a repetitive trauma injury
. Though Ms. B was receiving some of the benefits which South Carolina's laws entitled her to, she was concerned that her settlement would fail to adequately compensate her for the fact that she could never return to her former line of work.
To obtain a fair result for Ms. B, we emphasized the following points:
- Ms. B is 46 years old.
- She has a high school diploma.
- Her work history is defined by medium to heavy duty labor, with the exception of a brief time as a convenience store cashier.
- Ms. B is unable to return to any labor intensive occupation. She has applied for light duty work at Bi-Lo, Dollar General, Advance Auto Parts, and several other businesses, but is currently unemployed.
The combination of age, impairment, minimal education, ongoing physical problems in the affected body parts, and the absence of transferable management skills make it difficult for Ms. B to secure earnings that approach her pre-injury wages with Trane. She also continues to experience numbness, tingling, and weakness, but is nonetheless ready for closure, and thus willing to enter a clincher agreement.
Securing a Workers' Comp Settlement for a Repetitive Trauma Injury
In light of those arguments, and because a workers' compensation settlement is based on far more than someone's impairment rating, we were able to obtain a larger sum for Ms. B than she ever anticipated.
If you find yourself questioning how much money you should receive from any type of on the job injury
in South Carolina - including repetitive trauma - don't trust an insurance company to tell you the truth. Instead, contact me for a free consultation and request free copies of my books by calling 803-790-2800 or by using the live chat box below.
DISCLAIMER: The results are specific to the facts and legal circumstances of each of the clients' cases and should not be used to form an expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client's case.