 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jarrett v. McCreary Modern12/7/2004
your opinions, I understand that you had a chance to review, at some point, all [plaintiff's] medical records, the job description and videotape?
A: . . . I have reviewed the pertinent records in regard to this problem. And, yes, I reviewed a videotape of her job . And I have kind of a written summary what was in the tape . . .
Q: . . . To a reasonable degree of medical certainty, did [plaintiff's] job -- could it or might it have caused her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome?
A: Yes.
Q: You -- did she work -- you mentioned a high incidence of carpal tunnel syndrome being repetitive workplaces . In your opinion, was [plaintiff] working in a repetitive work environment?
A: Yes.
MS. NEEL: Objection.
A: There's no question about that.
Q: And why --
A: By any criterion, this patient had more than 2,000 separate motions an hour. And all the motions that are the worst motions for causing carpal tunnel syndrome were clearly demonstrated repetitively on that videotape.
Dr. DeFranzo clearly answered in the affirmative when questioned by plaintiff's counsel as to whether plaintiff's job "could" or "might" have caused plaintiff's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Our Supreme Court has stated that "could" or "might" expert testimony is probative and competent evidence to prove causation, where there is no additional evidence showing the expert's opinion to be a guess or mere speculation. Holley v. ACTS, Inc., 357 N.C. 228, 233, 581 S.E.2d 750, 753 (2003); Young v. Hickory Bus. Furniture, 353 N.C. 227, 233, 538 S.E.2d 912, 916 (2000).
We are not persuaded by defendants' characterization of Dr. DeFranzo's opinion testimony as being based on mere guesswork or speculation. When asked whether plaintiff's employment "could" or "might" have caused her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, Dr. DeFranzo unequivocally responded "Yes." Moreover, after reviewing plaintiff's job duties, Dr. DeFranzo definitively characterized her job as involving repetitive hand motions, including several of the motions most closely associated with the development of carpal tunnel syndrome, and testified that plaintiff's employment "without question" exposed her to a greater risk of developing the disease than members of the general public not so employed. Finally, Dr. DeFranzo considered other potential causes of carpal tunnel syndrome and discounted them as possibilities in the present case. Cf. Young, 353 N.C. at 231-32, 538 S.E.2d at 915-16 (evidence insufficient to support Commission's findings and conclusions that employee's work-related back injury significantly contributed to her fibromyalgia where treating physician testified that he was frequently unable to ascribe a cause for fibromylagia in his patients, that he was aware from employee's medical history of at least three potential causes for her fibromyalgia other than her work-related injury, and that tests to rule out these other potential causes had not been conducted); Holley, 357 N.C. at 233, 581 S.E.2d at 753-54 (same, where employee's first treating physician testified that he could not say to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that employee's work-related accident led to her development of deep vein thrombosis and that "a galaxy of possibilities" could have led to her DVT, and employee's second treating physician testified that she "was unable to say with any degree of certainty" whether employee's work-related injury led to her development of DVT).
We therefore conclude that the Commission's findings and conclusions that plaintiff's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by the conditions of her employment were support
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|