In a scenario where an employee previously had 25% PD and later injures another eye, how should you reserve for the new injury?

In a scenario where an employee previously had 25% PD and later injures another eye, how should you reserve for the new injury?

• A. 100%
• B. Notify the excess carrier
• C. 25%
• D. 100% less 25%

Answer: (C)

The main idea is that subsequent injuries to a different body part are evaluated separately for permanent disability, and reserves are set based on the impairment from the new injury alone. In this scenario, the new injury to another eye is treated as a distinct PD event from the prior 25% PD. If the medical evaluation assigns 25% PD to the new eye, you reserve funding for that 25% only, not for the combined total or for the previous impairment. That’s why the correct reserve is 25%. This approach avoids overestimating the new obligation (as a full 100%), and it reflects that the prior disability remains a separate, preexisting condition. The option to notify the excess carrier isn’t a reserve amount, and subtracting from 100% isn’t how reserves for a new, separate injury are calculated.

The main idea is that subsequent injuries to a different body part are evaluated separately for permanent disability, and reserves are set based on the impairment from the new injury alone. In this scenario, the new injury to another eye is treated as a distinct PD event from the prior 25% PD. If the medical evaluation assigns 25% PD to the new eye, you reserve funding for that 25% only, not for the combined total or for the previous impairment. That’s why the correct reserve is 25%.

This approach avoids overestimating the new obligation (as a full 100%), and it reflects that the prior disability remains a separate, preexisting condition. The option to notify the excess carrier isn’t a reserve amount, and subtracting from 100% isn’t how reserves for a new, separate injury are calculated.