 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall v. State ex rel Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division12/28/2001
aused or partially caused by her car accident, or to assert that Hall has suffered a new injury that is not compensable.
[ ] Hall's medical evidence established that her lower back pain is caused by a bilateral pars defect. Dr. Zendler testified that the bilateral pars defect occurred during her 1997 work-related accident. The Division developed evidence that a pars defect existed in 1995, two years before her work-related accident occurred in 1997. In cross-examination, Dr. Gooder did not believe that the 1995 pars defect had any relationship to Hall's present pain symptoms. Dr. Zendler testified that the 1995 films did not indicate a bilateral pars fracture, and he stated that he could not be sure if it was the cause of Hall's later lower back pain complaints. He reiterated his opinion that because Hall had no history of lower back pain until after the work-place injury , that accident caused a bilateral pars fracture due to trauma and continued to cause Hall pain symptoms. The Division asked Dr. Zendler whether his opinion would remain unchanged if he were to become aware of prior complaints of pain before December 3, 1997, and Dr. Zendler responded noncommittally that it would depend on the time and cause of those back problems. From this evidence, the hearing examiner found that the physician's evidence did not provide a "high degree of surety" that Hall's present symptoms were caused by her work-related accident.
he causal connection between an accident or condition at the workplace is satisfied if the medical expert testifies that it is more probable than not that the work contributed in a material fashion to the precipitation, aggravation or acceleration of the injury . We do not invoke a standard of reasonable medical certainty with respect to such causal connection. Testimony by the medical expert to the effect that the injury "most likely," "contributed to," or "probably" is the product of the workplace suffices under our established standard. . . .
nder either the "reasonable medical probability" or "more probable than not" standard, [a claimant succeeds] in demonstrating the causal connection by a preponderance of the evidence. Pino v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 996 P.2d 679, 685 (Wyo. 2000).
Although Hall is correct that the applicable standard is not a "high degree of surety," the issue presented is whether the hearing examiner was entitled to find Hall's medical evidence not credible.
[ ] Reviewing the entire record, the evidence before the hearing examiner showed that a pars defect was causing Hall's pain symptoms, that Hall had a pre-existing pars defect and disk protrusions, that one doctor testifying on Hall's behalf had found the pre-existing pars defect irrelevant without reason, and that another doctor had testified that he was unaware of previous lower back pain injuries or symptoms. On this record, the hearing examiner was entitled to determine that Hall's medical evidence was not credible. Having made that basic finding, the hearing examiner properly concluded that Hall had not established causation between her work-related accident and her present pain symptoms, thus failing in her burden to prove every essential element of her claim.
[ ] Addressing the Division's alternate claim, the Division bore the burden of proving that Hall's present pain symptoms were caused by a new injury. Dan's Supermarket v. Pate, 2001 WY 104, , 20, 33 P.3d 1121, , 20 (Wyo. 2001). The evidence established that Hall had suffered subsequent incidents that required medical attention, and after the truck door struck her, an x-ray indicated that Hall had suffered a bilateral pars defect at some point. Dr. Zendler
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|