 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Drakeford v. Charlotte Express6/17/2003
Q: . . . Sir, we have taken the deposition of Dr. Lam in this matter, and Dr. Lam has diagnosed or has found that Mr. Drakeford had a degenerative disk disease. Did you find any indication that Mr. Drakeford had a degenerative disk disease?
A: No, but--I didn't find any evidence of degenerative disk disease, but everybody who drives a truck at his age has degenerative disk disease, including me and probably half the people at this table. So degenerative disk disease means that your disks are getting old. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are responsible for a problem.
Q: Did you find any--did you find that Mr. Drakeford had symptoms of degenerative disk disease?
A: No.
The Full Commission chose to credit Dr. Elkins' testimony as opposed to that given by Dr. Lam. As indicated earlier, the Full Commission is the "sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence" and does not have to explain its findings of fact by attempting to distinguish which evidence or witnesses it finds credible. Deese, 352 N.C. at 116, 530 S.E.2d at 553. We conclude that ample evidence in the record supported the Commission's findings of fact.
Next, we examine whether the findings of fact support the Commission's conclusions of law. We believe that they do. Findings of fact numbers 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, among others, specifically describe plaintiff's injury , his subsequent improvement, and his ongoing and pre-existing neurological condition. Thus, we reject plaintiff's argument.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the decision of the Industrial Commission.
Affirmed.
Judges MARTIN and STEELMAN concur.
|