 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Appeal of Walker9/8/1999
e injury, and other than on transient complaint . . . to the physical therapist there is no other mention of any back pain in therapist or doctors' notes" prior to January 1994.
At the hearing, however, the petitioner testified that she did in fact complain of back pain prior to January 1994. Indeed, the board noted in its order that the first report of injury , the day the alleged accident occurred, indicated that the petitioner had "back" complaints. The petitioner testified that she informed the hospital emergency department that day that her "back regions hurt," and the respondent concedes that the June 1993 emergency room record states in part, "Low-back show some mild tenderness." The petitioner also testified that she mentioned low back pain to Dr. Blackwood in June 1993, to her massage therapist in October 1993, and to Dr. Usher in December 1993. Further, the respondent acknowledges that physical therapy notes reference low back pain during four sessions in 1993. Finally, the petitioner testified that her "back got really bad" around "December . . . beginning of January ," after which she persistently complained of low back pain to her doctors.
Again, the board does not say or intimate that the petitioner was not credible. See Gamas, 138 N.H. at 490-91, 642 A.2d at 927. Nor does the board state that it disbelieved the evidence in the first report of injury , which it cited in its decision. Moreover, the board does not indicate which portions of Dr. Kleeman's report it adopted in denying the petitioner's claim, even though certain portions of Dr. Kleeman's report appear at odds with the undisputed record. Without such factual findings, we cannot determine whether the board acted reasonably in its apparent ruling that the petitioner failed to establish medical causation. Accordingly, we remand the issue of medical causation to the board so it can make appropriate factual findings.
II.
We next address the petitioner's argument that the board erred if it concluded that a pre-existing condition was the cause of the petitioner's back complaints and resulting surgery. Contrary to the respondent's contention, the petitioner has advanced no claim that the alleged work injury was in fact an aggravation of any pre-existing condition. The board mentioned that "Dr. Hepner's notes indicate back problems in 1987, 1988 and 1989," but its order does not indicate that prior back problems had any bearing on its Conclusion regarding the claimed 1993 injury. To the extent the board concluded that a pre-existing condition was the cause of the petitioner's back complaints and resulting surgery, we remand for it to make appropriate findings of fact to support its decision on remand. See Appeal of Lambrou, 136 N.H. 18, 21, 609 A.2d 754, 756 (1992).
Vacated and remanded.
All concurred.
|