 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Buxton v. Sunland Construction8/22/2001
t is given. According to Dr. Abraham, because the chart contains no reference to a job-related injury, it was fair to assume that the plaintiff did not convey that information. The plaintiff also did not tell Dr. Abraham that he had a past history of elbow pain in the arm.
Dr. Abraham's examination revealed a limited range of motion, but no redness or swelling. The physician opined that the plaintiff simply had bursitis. He gave the plaintiff some nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and noted that if the plaintiff's symptoms did not improve, an orthopedic referral would be necessary.
The plaintiff did not return to Dr. Abraham. On September 28, 1998, he went to Dr. Brian Bulloch, an orthopedic surgeon. The plaintiff claimed that he injured his arm at work. The plaintiff was not sure how long the arm had been hurting. He indicated that it could have been from three weeks to two months. He was originally diagnosed with a muscle or tendon strain of the distal biceps and recommended physical therapy. On November 19, 1998, Dr. Bulloch saw the plaintiff and determined that an MRI was necessary. Following this test, on February 3, 1999, Dr. Bulloch concluded that the plaintiff had a distal biceps tendon injury and recommended physical therapy. On that date, Dr. Bulloch released the plaintiff to light duty work.
Even though the plaintiff asserts through his own testimony that he sustained a work-related accident or injury , there is evidence which discredits and casts doubt on the plaintiff's version of events. The plaintiff's claims are not corroborated by circumstances such as medical evidence and testimony of co-workers. The plaintiff's claim is internally inconsistent. The record does not show that the plaintiff suffered an unforeseen actual identifiable event happening suddenly or violently which produced objective findings of an injury that was more than a gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration. Also, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that he had a weakened condition which collapsed due to a precipitating event. Based upon the facts presented, the WCJ was reasonable in finding that the plaintiff failed to prove a work-related accident or injury. Therefore, we find that the WCJ was not manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in concluding that the plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof in this matter.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the WCJ, dismissing the claims of the plaintiff, Michael Buxton, for workers' compensation benefits and medical expenses. Costs are assessed to the plaintiff.
AFFIRMED.
|