 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cutsinger v. Spears Manufacturing Company6/28/2002
2001 Opinion No. 88
The order of the Industrial Commission is, affirmed.
I. NATURE OF THE CASE
Claimant Charles E. Cutsinger (Cutsinger) appeals the Industrial Commission's (Commission) decision in which the Commission denied him benefits for the aggravation of his pre-existing condition. We affirm.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Cutsinger suffered a left elbow injury in the eighth grade while he was playing football. Cutsinger subsequently sought medical treatment for the injury, and he had several surgeries to correct the injury between 1980 and 1990.
In 1994, Cutsinger went to work as a fabricator at Spears Manufacturing (Spears), a manufacturer of pipe fittings and valves. While working for Spears, Cutsinger's left arm and wrist began to bother him again. He continued to work for Spears until November of 1996, when he temporarily left to pursue another employment opportunity. He returned to work for Spears in February of 1997, and resumed his previous job duties.
Following his return, Cutsinger complained of pain and swelling in his wrist, and he sought further medical attention, including another surgery. On April 8, 1998, a medical doctor, Dr. Porter, linked Cutsinger's wrist problem to his elbow injury and surgical attempts to correct the elbow injury. Dr. Michael Phillips, an orthopedic surgeon, examined Cutsinger on December 28, 1998, and he stated that in his opinion, the wrist problem was totally attributable to Cutsinger's elbow injury.
Cutsinger was given a release to return to work in January 1999, and he sought worker 's compensation for his wrist injury. The referee found that Cutsinger's work activities, involving repetitive wrist movement, aggravated and/or accelerated his pre-existing condition.
The referee, however, found that Cutsinger had not proven to a reasonable degree of medical probability that an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment caused the aggravation or acceleration of his pre-existing condition. The referee noted that even though Cutsinger had testified about two industrial accidents involving his left wrist, he had not presented medical evidence supporting a causal relationship between either of the alleged accidents and the aggravation of his condition. The referee further observed that Dr. Porter had cited the repetitive nature of Cutsinger's work activity, and not a specific incident, as the cause of the symptoms. The referee thus concluded:
ven assuming Claimant has met his burden of proving an occupational disease, his claim remains non-compensable under Nistad, Nelson, and its progeny because proof of a precipitating accident is lacking. Thus, the remaining issues of occupational disease, medical benefits, temporary disability, permanent partial impairment, and attorney fees are rendered moot.
The Industrial Commission subsequently adopted the referee's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Cutsinger filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court on December 13, 1999.
III. DISCUSSION
On appeal, the sole issue raised is whether the legislature intended to overrule Nelson v. Ponsness-Warren Idgas Enter., 126 Idaho 129, 879 P.2d 592 (1992), and its progeny when it amended Idaho Code ยง 72-439 in 1997. Nelson required that there be an accident before a pre-existing condition, which becomes aggravated, is covered by worker 's compensation benefits. This very issue was recently decided, in February 2002, by this Court in Koch v. Micron Technology, 2002 WL 252441. In Koch we wrote:
If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, this Court need merely apply
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|