By: dmc-admin//February 10, 2003//
By: dmc-admin//February 10, 2003//
“Keltgen argues his WCA recovery only compensates him for the pain and suffering he experienced as a result of his economic harms and he should therefore be able to recover for his other pain and suffering under the § 51.61(1)(f) claim.
“We conclude, however, that Keltgen’s pain and suffering resulting from the assaults was compensated by his WCA recovery and, therefore, further recovery would be duplicative. ‘Pain and suffering as a result of a work-related injury clearly flow from that injury.’ (citation)….
“Further, the definition of ‘injury’ in Wis. Stat. § 102.01(2)(c) includes ‘mental or physical harm.’
Keltgen is claiming he suffered posttraumatic stress as a result of the attacks, which resulted in weight loss and behavioral and mood changes. We conclude this meets the definition of mental harm.”
Judgment affirmed.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
Dist III, Eau Claire County, Barland, J., Cane, C.J.
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Phillip P. Todryk, Hudson
For Respondent: John P. Richie, Eau Claire