 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Berg v. Parker Drilling Co.9/21/2004
ust be reviewed by the "any competent evidence" standard of review rule of Parks v. Norman Municipal Hospital, 1984 OK 548, 684 P.2d 548, 552, and that the Court of Civil Appeals invaded the fact-finding province of the trial court when it re-weighed the evidence to determine where it believed the preponderance to lie.
Employer is correct. The issue of whether disability results from an accidental injury , or from a pre-existing disease or prior injury is a fact question for determination by the Workers' Compensation Court.
In Refrigerated Transport, Inc., v. Creek, 1979 OK 11, 590 P.2d 197, the Court stated:
Whether disability results from accidental injury , or prior injury or disease, is a fact question exclusively for determination by the State Industrial Court, whose findings on review by this Court will not be disturbed if based upon any competent evidence. Conflicting evidence relating to the issue is never weighed to determine weight and credibility. [Citation omitted. ]. Probative value of medical evidence to show disability resulted from accidental injury is determined by State Industrial Court, which may accept all or part of the evidence, or reject evidence entirely. Id. at 200.
Reaffirming this holding in Parks v. Norman Municipal Hospital, 1984 OK 53, 684 P.2d 548, we found the traditional "any competent evidence" standard for appellate review, which existed prior to the 1977 revision of workers' compensation laws, continued by force of 85 O.S. 1981 ยง26 to limit appellate review questions of law. Findings of fact made by the trial court are conclusive and binding unless they are ascertained to lack support in competent evidence. Under this standard, our responsibility is simply to canvass the facts, not with the object of weighing conflicting evidence to determine where the preponderance lies, but only to ascertain whether the decision is supported by any competent evidence. It is only in the absence of supporting evidence that the trial court's decision may be determined erroneous as a matter of law and therefore subject to vacation.
We find here competent evidence from which the trial court could infer that there was not a causal nexus between claimant's injury and the disability for which he sought compensation benefits and medical treatment.
The opinion of the Court of Civil appeals is vacated and the order of the Workers's Compensation Court is sustained.
WATT, C.J., OPALA, V.C.J., LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, KAUGER, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, JJ. - Concur
|