 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Salas v. General Chemical6/26/2003
On appeal, Brees did not dispute that she had a pre-existing back condition, but argued that her doctor's testimony established that her work injury materially aggravated the pre-existing condition. Id. at 131. We concluded that
Dr. Metz' testimony does not establish whether Brees materially aggravated her previous condition... because Dr. Metz was never directly asked whether Brees' surgery resulted from the pre-existing condition or from twisting and pushing the cart. As a consequence, Brees has not presented any evidence on the question of whether the back pain experienced when twisting and pushing the cart... materially aggravated her pre-existing condition and resulted in a compensable injury.
Id. at 133. Yet, in the instant case, Dr. Bienz not only was able to attribute the need for arthroscopy in part due to the May 1999 accident, but also opined "to a reasonable degree of medical probability" that the accident aggravated or exacerbated Salas' pre-existing degenerative knee condition.
The circumstances of the instant case are similar to those contained in Roggenbuck, 938 P.2d at 853. In that case, the claimant
had a history of back problems, scars from two previous back surgeries, and a permanent partial disability of 60 percent, alerted his employer of a work-related injury to his back incurred nine days into his new employment.
Id. at 853. Further,
edical evidence included a statement by the doctor treating claimant since January of 1991 that 50 percent of claimant's current condition was due to the instant injury. This percentage included the normal aging process and normal daily living activities. A comparison of an MRI report after the accident to one performed two and a half years earlier indicates a significant deterioration and worsening of claimant's condition.
It is true that claimant and his doctor discussed surgery before the work-related injury, however notes from claimant's doctor indicate that discussion took place over a two and a half year period before the last injury. As pointed out by the hearing examiner in Finding No. 5, it was the "work effort [that] brought the need for surgery to a head and forced the surgery to be done at this time." Further, testimony indicated that the pain levels experienced by claimant increased after the injury; and, when taken as a whole, the evidence supports the hearing examiner's conclusions that the work efforts on behalf of the employer contributed to a material degree to the precipitation, aggravation or acceleration of his pre-existing condition to the point that surgery could no longer be avoided.
Id. at 853-54. Accordingly, we affirmed the hearing examiner's findings and his decision awarding the claimant benefits.
Having found substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner's findings in the instant case, we reverse the district court's decision, and affirm the hearing examiner's decision awarding Salas benefits.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|