Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Worker feels sting of workers comp denial

Reprints

A Virginia worker got a one-two punch of bad news when she was bitten at work by a poisonous snake then learned her workers comp provider was denying her coverage for her treatment.

Twenty-nine-year-old Ke’Vonia Cousins of Chesterfield, Virginia, was headed outside her employer’s Richmond, Virginia, building for a break when the baby copperhead struck, landing her in the hospital for three days and two rounds of anti-venom, according to local media reports.

“I felt a ting on my big toe and wetness, like hurting pain. I looked up to see if the ceiling was leaking and I need to tell my manager and I looked down and the snake was on my big toe,” she said.

Now undergoing physical therapy, Ms. Cousins, has learned The Results Cos.’ insurer has denied her workers compensation claim.

The company told Richmond’s NBC12, the denial “is based on (the insurer’s) preliminary interpretation of the facts of the injury as they relate to the State of Virginia Workers Compensation Statute. We have reached out to the Insurance Adjusters and their Legal Counsel for further clarification on their reasoning behind that decision and anticipate hearing back from them in the next couple of days.”

Meanwhile, the property management firm has hired an exterminator who has not discovered any more hungry baby or adult copperheads on the premises.

Read Next

  • Flavored vodka leads to lip litigation

    The image of a pair of lips may strike many as a kind of strange focus for a 26-page appellate court opinion, not to mention the thousands of dollars in legal expenses that led to it, but that in fact is the case in a decision last week in a trademark infringement dispute over flavored vodka.