 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Liles v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company of America5/24/2000
ity. Vocational disability can be established by lay testimony. Perkins v. Enterprise Truck Lines, Inc. 896 S.W. 2d. 123 (Tenn. 1995). In the instant case, Plaintiff experienced pain which was disabling. She testified that she could no longer perform the duties of a lab technician on a full time basis. Her current job involves more paperwork and training than accurately performing testing. Her current job is less stressful than her previous job. Plaintiff testified that she missed work as a result of her injury but she was not due any temporary total disability payments because she was paid a salary. She further testified that her pain and problems prevented her from performing her household duties which included vacuuming and raking leaves. Plaintiff testified that when she performed many duties, she "pays for it with pain" which requires her to go to bed and take medication. Dr. Bagby testified that he released Plaintiff to return to work to perform her duties as she is able to tolerate the pain. He further testified that she was going to be miserable at home and at work so she might as well work. Both Drs. Bagby and Allen testified that she had permanent impairment as a result of her condition. Dr. Bagby diagnosed Plaintiff as having fibromyalgai which often involves "a dull miserable fatigue producing pain." There is no doubt from the record that Plaintiff's pain is disabling.
By its last issue, the Defendant/Appellant objects to the Trial Court's considering testimony of Dr. John A. Campa, III. Dr. Campa was a treating physician and he is a specialist in neuropain, a subspecialty of nerology. Dr. Campa began treating Plaintiff in November, 1995. He took a detailed history of the Plaintiff as well as reviewing test that had been ordered by previous physicians. The Defendant argues that Dr. Campa's testimony is inconsistent with the other physicians. We disagree. Dr. Bagby and Allen both testified the Plaintiff would retain a disability or continue to have disabling pain. These doctors' testimony only differ as to causation. Dr. Allen agrees that the October, 1994 incident could have aggravated the pre-existing condition. When the opinions of medical experts differ in a workman's compensation case, the Trial Court has the discretion to accept the opinion of one medical expert over another. Johnson v. Midwesco, Inc., 801 S.W. 2d 804 (Tenn. 1990). Here the Trial Court properly chose the opinions of Dr. Allen and Dr. Campa over Dr. Bagby and Dr. Breeden. Dr. Breeden did not see or treat Plaintiff after the 4 October 1994 incident and therefore is not in a position to give any opinion regarding Plaintiff's condition or causation of the condition after the 4 October 1994 injury . Dr. Bagby saw Plaintiff on four occasions. He made three different diagnosis of Plaintiff's condition and the cause of it. He ultimately diagnosed her as having fibromyalgai of an unknown origin. He is the only doctor that made this diagnosis. He had not seen the Plaintiff since February, 1995 and was not in a position to testify concerning her current condition. We are of the opinion that the Trial Court gave the appropriate weight to Dr. Campa's testimony.
We find the issues submitted by Defendant/Appellant to be without merit. The preponderance of the evidence fully supports the findings of the Trial Court and we affirm the Trial Court's judgment in all respects.
Costs on appeal are taxed to the Defendant/Appellant and the cause remanded to the Trial Court for further necessary proceedings.
|