 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Booth v. Sears Roebuck5/24/2000
ommission's finding that his back pain is attributable to a diabetic origin rather than his 1996 back injury is not supported by substantial evidence. Appellant maintains that the doctors merely speculated that diabetes may have been affecting his legs, and contends that diabetes does not affect the back. He also contends that he was having no problems whatsoever with any physical limitations due to diabetes. However, Dr. Mason stated that the largest part of appellant's current problem was related to the polyneuropathy, a condition associated with diabetes.
Second, appellant argues that the Commission erred in finding that his back injury had only a small impact on his future earning capacity. Appellant points out that he now earns only $165.00 per week whereas he earned $313.00 prior to his injury. Also, he can no longer work forty- hour work weeks and has had to cut his time back to thirteen hours per week. His job performance has also been affected because he misses sales due to the fact that he has to sit most of the time. Appellant has also experienced animosity with his co-workers since he is no longer required to do heavy lifting or other strenuous duties. Considering appellant's education and experience in sales as well as the restrictions imposed by his doctors, we find that substantial evidence supports the Commission's conclusion that the restrictions would have little impact on appellant's overall future earning potential.
Affirmed.
Stroud and Griffen, JJ., agree.
|