 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Baird v. Ozarks Coca-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Company9/9/2003
laimant experienced was the 1993 back injury for which he had previously been compensated.
Employer bases its argument on evidence it obtained from Dr. Thomas Corsolini. Claimant was sent to Dr. Corsolini, employer's company doctor, after complaining to employer of back pain. Dr. Corsolini examined claimant February 21, 1997. Dr Corsolini also reviewed a MRI diagnostic study of claimant. Dr. Corsolini's opinion was that claimant's complaints of pain related to "waxing and waning of the original problem for which he was seen in 1993 and 1994."
Claimant was also examined by Dr. Terry Winkler and Dr. Norbert Belz. Claimant consulted Dr. Winkler after employer's company doctor suggested that further treatment for claimant's February 1997 complaints "should be conducted outside the Workers' Compensation system." Dr. Winkler's opinion was that claimant reinjured his back in February 1997 in the course of his employment; that an MRI scan revealed a change in the L5-S1 disc on the left side. Diagnostic studies obtained at the request of Dr. Winkler disclosed a herniated disc at L5-S1, which impinged on the left nerve root.
Dr. Belz testified that he specialized in occupational and environmental medicine. He is board certified in preventative medicine and occupational and environmental medicine. His opinion was that claimant's 1993 injury became essentially asymptomatic and in a stable condition by mid-1996; that claimant experienced a new injury between January and June of 1997. Dr. Belz's testimony was based on his experience and education, independent medical examination of claimant, and examination of outside medical records and diagnostic studies of claimant. Dr. Belz testified that his opinion was that claimant would require medical care or medications in the future as a result of the injury sustained as a result of his employment between January and June of 1997. Dr. Belz expected claimant to require ongoing medical care for his life expectancy.
The commission, adopting the opinion of the administrative law judge, concluded that the differences in the medical opinions presented should be resolved in favor of claimant. The commission found Dr. Belz to be more credible and persuasive than the evidence contrary to his findings. The commission found and concluded that claimant "sustained an injury to his low back in January 1997, and continued to injure his back during additional lifting incidents at work"; that " he injury . . . arose out of and in the course of [claimant's] employment with employer." The commission found that the incident or incidents should be viewed as a single work-related injury initiated when employer sustained an accident in January 1997 when he lifted a bag of lime; that this incident caused claimant to suffer a bulging or herniated disc and a change in pathology.
"When the right to compensation depends on the acceptance of one of two competing medical theories, the issue is one of fact and the Commission's finding will not be disturbed unless the Commission acted unreasonably in accepting testimony that was not substantial or decided the issue contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence." Keener v. Wilcox Elec., Inc., 884 S.W.2d 744, 746 (Mo.App. 1994). The commission did not act unreasonably in accepting the medical testimony that supports the medical theory on which claimant based his claim for benefits. Giving deference to the commission' ;s assessment of the credibility of witnesses, the commission did not decide the issue of claimant's disability contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Point I is denied.
Point II claims the commission erred in awarding workers' compensation benefits to claimant b
Page 1 2 3 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|