Thursday, July 10, 2008

Two to function

Not very recently, there was this odd but rather interesting case about a woman who suffered injury on her breast implants.

It appeared that the woman figured in a car accident, her breasts were the hard hit so they were damaged. Upon her claim before an Industrial Commission, replacements of both implants were approved.

Upon appeal, the appellate court agreed with the commission saying that the implants are covered by the worker’s compensation claim because the implants are a “prosthetic device that functions as part of the body.”

However, the court ruled that one – only one of the implants – is covered by the compensation as only one was damaged by the accident. The other one was found out to have been damage by a rippling because it was under-filled.

One dissenting judge stressed out that both implants are needed to make sure that they were “symmetrical and evenly matched.”

Apparently, two of the other judges did not have the aesthetic sense the lone dissenting judge has.

The case was returned to the commission for final resolution – to whether or not allow the coverage of both breasts implants under worker’s compensation, presumably for aesthetic consideration.

However, that is another story for another time.