 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
S. B. Thomas Inc. v. Thompson3/4/1997
OPINION BY MOYLAN, J.
The initial focus of this appeal is on whether the etiology of the herniated disc in this case was a complicated medical question. If the answer is "Yes," the focus then will turn to whether expert medical testimony is required to establish a legally sufficient, prima facie case of, depending on the allocation of the burden of production, either 1) a causal relationship or 2) the absence of a causal relationship between an earlier traumatic event and the subsequent herniation.
The herniated disc was suffered by Dennis A. Thompson, the appellee. The earlier traumatic event was a job -related injury sustained by him while working for S.B. Thomas, Inc. The appellee filed a claim with the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission ("Commission"). The Commission ruled his current disability to have been causally related to the previous job -related injury. S.B. Thomas, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois , the insurer, appealed the Commission's decision to the Circuit Court for Frederick County.
A trial was held before Judge Mary Ann Stepler, sitting with a jury. At the close of the appellants' case, the appellee made a Motion for Judgment contending that the appellants were required to present expert testimony on the causation issue because the issue involved was a "complicated medical question" and that they had failed to do so. Judge Stepler agreed and granted judgment in favor of the appellee. The appellants raise three issues on appeal, which we have reordered and reworded:
1. Whether the appellants are required to present expert medical testimony where the issue is the lack of causal connection and whether that issue involves a complicated medical question?
2. Whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding the different reporting habits engaged in by the appellee when reporting work-related accidents and non-work-related injuries?
3. Whether the trial court erred by excluding a security camera videotape that showed the appellant walking and running from his place of work the day before the appellant allegedly suffered his present disability?
Our disposition of the first contention (or set of subcontentions) in favor of the appellee makes the other two contentions moot.
The Factual Background
On October 6, 1992, the appellee filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits as a result of an accidental injury to his back suffered while he was performing work-related duties. He sustained the injury while attempting to "right" a 200-pound stack of trays that was tipping over on a conveyor belt. The appellants accepted the claim as valid and promptly initiated payment of benefits. As a result of that injury, the appellee missed only a short amount of work time. While continuing to receive medical treatment for his injury, the appellee was given "light duty." On November 12, 1992, the appellee was discharged from his medical treatment by Dr. Robert Fisher. At the time of his discharge, the appellee told Dr. Fisher that his symptoms were much improved, but that he still had some occasional pain in the lower back, sometimes radiating down the right leg and sometimes down the left. Both before the Commission and again at trial, the appellee described his condition during the six-to-seven-month period between being released from physical therapy treatment and when his back "locked up" on June 3:
At work, I was bending over a lot and the pain never really went away. It decreased a lot after the physical therapy, but it never really went away, and it had just got--gradually kept getting worse and worse and worse until June when my back actually
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|