 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Norton Community Hospital12/23/2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Norton Community Hospital and its insurer (hereinafter referred to as "employer") contend the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that Christina Marie Sexton (claimant) proved that (1) her herniated disc and related disability were causally related to her June 20, 2002 accident; and (2) she did not violate or exceed her medical restrictions at the time she sustained her injury on June 20, 2002. Upon reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27.
Causation
"In order to establish entitlement to compensation benefits, the claimant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, an injury by accident which arose out of and in the course of employment." Classic Floors, Inc. v. Guy, 9 Va. App. 90, 95, 383 S.E.2d 761, 764 (1989). " o establish an injury by accident, a claimant must prove: (1) an identifiable incident; (2) that occurs at some reasonably definite time; (3) an obvious sudden mechanical or structural change in the body; and (4) a causal connection between the incident and the bodily change." Chesterfield County v. Dunn, 9 Va. App. 475, 476, 389 S.E.2d 180, 181 (1990) (citation omitted). "The actual determination of causation is a factual finding that will not be disturbed by this Court on appeal if there is credible evidence to support the finding." Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Musick, 7 Va. App. 684, 688, 376 S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989).
In ruling that claimant proved a causal connection between her herniated disc and resulting disability and her June 20, 2002 work-related accident, the commission found as follows:
We agree that during the spring of 2002, the claimant apparently participated in some lifting activities, and that she suffered some episodes of back pain. However, we are not convinced that Dr. [Galen] Smith was not provided a complete and accurate history, or that these incidents negate the claimant's evidence that the June 20, 2002, incident resulted in a new back injury.
Dr. Smith's notes reflect that he knew that the claimant was not completely pain-free or symptom free prior to the episode of June 20, 2002. His office notes and operative report illustrate his knowledge that the claimant continued to have back problems during the spring of 2002, which required medication. On August 22, 2002, Dr. Smith advised that although the claimant was working and doing reasonably well, she still had some back pain and mild burning in her feet. Furthermore, he acknowledged that the claimant had required four additional prescription refills from April 22 through June 4, 2002.
Although the claimant suffered from ongoing symptoms they were not sufficiently severe to cause her to return to Dr. Smith for treatment. However, after the June 20, 2002, incident, the claimant described new severe pain, and Dr. Smith emphasized that on June 20, 2002, "her condition took a sudden turn for the worst ." Dr. Smith clearly concluded in September 2002 that the June 20, 2002, incident was a new injury. This correlates with the diagnosis of the other involved physician. When claimant received emergency treatment, the healthcare professional diagnosed acute low back pain.
The employer presented no medical evidence to the contrary. No physician has opined that the June 20, 2002, incident merely led to an exacerbation of the claimant's pre-existing condition or that her lifting incidents during the spring of 2002 impacted on her pre-existing back condition.
The claimant presented unrefuted evidence that her back condition was causally related to the new June 20, 200
Page 1 2 3 Virginia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|