 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hand v. Royal Insurance Company of America12/19/2002
that her medical care and her disability are causally related to her July 2, 2001 incident. "Causation is an essential element to benefit entitlement." Hash v. Montana Silversmith, 256 Mont. 252, 257, 846 P.2d 981, 983 (1993); and see Caekaert v. State Compensation Mut. Ins. Fund, 268 Mont. 105, 112, 885 P.2d 495, 499 (1994). Section 39-71-704, MCA (2001), which governs medical benefits, provides in relevant part:
39-71-704. Payment of medical, hospital, and related services -- fee schedules and hospital rates -- fee limitation. (1) In addition to the compensation provided under this chapter and as an additional benefit separate and apart from compensation benefits actually provided, the following must be furnished:
(a) After the happening of a compensable injury and subject to other provisions of this chapter, the insurer shall furnish reasonable primary medical services for conditions resulting from the injury for those periods as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery requires. [Emphasis added.]
Section 39-71-701, MCA (1997), which governs temporary total disability benefits, provides in relevant part:
39-71-701. Compensation for temporary total disability -- exception. (1) Subject to the limitation in 39-71-736 and subsection (4) of this section, a worker is eligible for temporary total disability benefits:
(a) when the worker suffers a total loss of wages as a result of an injury and until the worker reaches maximum healing . . . . [Emphasis added.]
In the present case the claimant has failed to show that her surgery or disability are consequences of her July 2, 2001 incident. The insurer has shown that her underlying, pre-existing cervical stenosis caused both the surgery and her disability. Claimant was already on a downward slide symptomatically prior to the July 2nd incident, and her surgery was inevitable. Other than to somewhat increase her existing symptoms, Dr. Weinert was unable to say whether the July 2nd incident contributed to her condition and claimant has offered no medical evidence showing on a more probable than not basis that the incident materially altered the course of her care and disability. She has further failed to prove that the incident caused or aggravated any other condition which was disabling or requires additional medical treatment.
JUDGMENT
The claimant is not entitled to temporary total disability benefits on account of her July 2, 2001 industrial accident. She is also not entitled to further medical benefits. Her petition is dismissed with prejudice.
Claimant is not entitled to costs.
This JUDGMENT is certified as final for purposes of appeal.
Any party to this dispute may have twenty days in which to request a rehearing from these Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment.
DATED in Helena, Montana, this 19th day of December, 2002.
Submitted: June 28, 2002
|