So. Dakota Supreme Court Approves Workers' Compensation For Plumber
By (credited to) Chet Brokaw of the Associated Press - March 19, 2004A Sioux Falls man is entitled to Workers' Compensation benefits for electrical burns he received while working as an apprentice plumber, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday, March 18th.
Workers' Compensation insurance must cover Thaddeus Wells because his employer and its insurance company did not prove his injuries were caused by his failure to use a safety device, the high court said in a unanimous opinion.
Wells worked for Howe Heating & Plumbling Inc. from 1994 to 2002. When he went to a house to install a shower faucet, drain and water heater in July 2000, he took a light and an electric saw into a crawl space under the building.
Wells said he saw a spark and decided to leave, but electricity surged through his body for about 30 seconds when he grabbed the light with one hand and the saw with the other. The shock stopped when he kicked at the extension cord to the saw, even though the kick did not unplug the cord, he said.
Wells had skin graft surgery for an electrical burn on his arm, and he missed work because of his injury, according to court documents.
Howe Heating & Plumbing and CNA Commercial Insurance argued that Wells was not entitled to Workers' Compensation coverage for his injury because he failed to use a safety device that breaks the circuit if it detects irregularities in the current.
A ground fault circuit interrupter plugs into a wall outlet, and an electrical tool is then plugged into the safety device. The state Labor Department found that Wells had violated one of Howe's safety rules. The department ruled that Wells was not entitled to benefits because his willful failure to use the device caused the accident.
But, Circuit Judge William Srstka of Sioux Falls ruled that Wells was entitled to benefits because Howe did not prove that Wells' injuries were caused by his failure to use the safety device. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that Howe Heating & Plumbing did not demonstrate that the safety device would have prevented the electrical shock.
A Howe employee who testified was not a qualified expert, the high court said. Without testimony from an expert, no one knows whether Wells' injuries were caused by his failure to use the safety device, the justices said. | 
__May11th2017.gif)
.gif)