The claimant was a CDL driver for the employer, who worked in the frac heating department during the winter. At approximately 4:00 AM one morning, during an overnight shift, the claimant alleged that he was lifting frozen hoses when he felt a pop in his lower back and had pain.
The claimant testified that he had flu-like symptoms for the two days following the alleged incident and that on the third day, he went to work and reported the alleged workplace injury to the employer.
Respondents presented four employer witnesses at hearing who testified that the claimant contacted the employer on the fourth day that he could not work due to having the flu and that the employer did not become aware of the alleged workplace injury until they called the claimant on the tenth day to ask why he had not returned to work. The employer witnesses testified that they brought the claimant in on the eleventh day wherein the claimant reported that he did not know exactly how he was hurt, he did not want to report the incident, and he wanted to work through it with his personal chiropractor.
At hearing, the claimant testified that he was in a car crash 35 years ago and that he had been seeing a chiropractor ever since for neck injuries and would receive adjustments for his entire spine.
He denied having low back pain prior to the alleged incident. Respondents obtained and submitted as exhibits chiropractic records indicating that the claimant had been seeing a personal chiropractor for at least two years prior to the alleged incident which reflected numerous treatments in the months prior and the days after the alleged incident, all of which documented a history of neck and low back pain with no acute exacerbation around the time of the alleged incident.
The ALJ credited the testimony of Respondents’ witnesses, specifically that the claimant did not report the alleged incident until at least 10 days after it allegedly occurred and only upon questioning by the employer.
The ALJ highlighted the witness testimony indicating that the claimant could not identify a specific mechanism of injury when questioned on the eleventh day.
Kaatz v. Select Water Solutions and AIU Insurance Company, W.C. No. 5-297-447-001 (Feb. 2026).
Want to know more? Contact Maura Healy at mhealy@pollartmiller.com
