Becton v. Grisham Corp.11/14/2000
ut the weight, credibility, and significance of such testimony. Seiber v. Greenbrier Indus., Inc., 906 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tenn. 1995). With these principles in mind, we turn to the facts of this case.
On January 30, 1995 at 10:32 a.m., plaintiff was at the Baptist Minor Medical Center with complaints of a laceration on his arm. Plaintiff testified that the alleged accidental injury , which is the subject of this law suit, occurred sometime between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on the morning of January 30, 1995, and that he worked the rest of the day. The proof showed that plaintiff did not work on January 31, 1995. On February 1, 1995, at 7:15 a.m., he reported to his employer that he had strained his back lifting a box of screws. At 8:20 a.m., on that same day, plaintiff went to the Baptist Minor Medical Center complaining of severe pain in his back. On February 4, 1995, he went back to the Baptist Minor Medical Center and stated that he was injured on February 1, 1995.
Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Robert H. Miller on February 6, 1995, and stated that the back injury was sustained on January 29, 1995. The plant was closed on January 29, 1995. An MRI was performed on February 20, 1995, which showed degenerative disc disease at L3-4, L4-5 and L5-S1, but no signs of a recurrent disc. A bone scan, performed on March 30, 1995, was negative. On April 12, 1995, a diagnosis was made by Dr. George Woods at the Campbell Clinic of "back pain, etiology undetermined, due to arthritis, lumbar spine and post laminectomy syndrome." Plaintiff was referred to Dr. Keith Atkins, Ph.D. on June 13, 1995, who diagnosed somatoform pain disorder with evidence of symptom amplification. After making an additional diagnosis of possible arachnoiditis on June 20, 1995, Dr. Woods referred plaintiff to Dr. James R. Feild, neurosurgeon.
Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Feild on June 22, 1995, and he rendered an opinion that Plaintiff had "aging of the joint of his back." On October 31, 1995, a myelogram was performed and a small spinal canal was found and he "did not see a definite ruptured disc." Electrical tests performed on November 6, 1995, showed evidence of diabetic neuritis. On November 6, 1995, Dr. Feild "could not make a definitive diagnosis" and recommended surgery or the option of a second opinion.
A second opinion was performed by Dr. Feridoon Parsioon who found no compressive lesion, no nerve damage, and no ruptured disc or tumor.
On December 26, 1995, Dr. Feild performed exploratory surgery which revealed growth of bone over one of the nerve roots and degenerative lumbar disc disease.
EXCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE TREATING PHYSICIAN
The plaintiff argues that the Chancellor erred in finding that Dr. Feild's deposition was unreliable even though, in his three hour long, extremely combative deposition, Dr. Feild admitted to purposely filing an inaccurate report. In this deposition, he stated that the form that he filled out was, in his own opinion, inaccurate. His justification for this was because
the insurance company you represent failed to take the responsibility that was necessary and incumbent upon them to provide this person medical care which he deserved and which is the subject of this lawsuit. That's the reason all of this is done, is because of the irresponsibility of your company and your insurance company that hires someone like you, a lawyer, to come in here to try to beat this poor ignorant man out of his money. That's exactly why we're here, and this document is an example of it.
Although absolute certainty is not required to prove causation, the medical testimony connecting the injury with the work related activity
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|