 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dunn v. Riverview Medical Center6/21/2002
on eventually is described as "wooding," wherein the soft tissue becomes "like fibrous scar tissue, like wood. It's hard." There is no treatment for wooding lymphedema.
The material facts are undisputed. The claimant has not identified an accident that produced objective findings of an injury . In fact, she specifically describes the onset of her lymphedema as gradual, developing over time.
Riverview asserts the claimant's disability does not meet the statutory definition of "occupational disease." To maintain an occupational disease claim, the claimant must establish an occupational disease resulting from causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to her particular trade, occupation, process, or employment. Carmean v. Enter. Prod. Partners, L.L.P., 2000-1919 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/9/01), 804 So.2d 95, writ denied, 2002-0477 (La. 4/19/02), 813 So.2d 1092. However, the law is well settled that a pre-existing disease or infirmity of an employee does not disqualify a workers' compensation claim if a work injury aggravated, accelerated or combined with the disease or infirmity to produce death or disability for which compensation is claimed. Walton v. Normandy Vill. Homes Assoc., Inc., 475 So.2d 320 (La. 1985). It is immaterial that the disability could have been brought on by causes other than a work-related trauma if, in fact, trauma on the job that meets the standards of accidental injury is a disabling factor. Moreover, an accident that aggravates or accelerates a pre-existing condition is compensable even where disability is not caused by a single or specific incident. Parks v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 340 So.2d 276 (La. 1976).
Likewise, we hold that a pre-existing infirmity aggravated or accelerated by a series of events characteristic of a particular employment combining to produce a disability is compensable. This broadened application comports with the established purpose of the workers' compensation law, to provide coverage for employees injured while at work whether by accident or occupational disease, and the rule of statutory interpretation, to give effect to the whole intention of legislation, giving meaning and application to every portion. See O'Regan v. Preferred Enter., Inc., 98-1602 (La. 3/17/00), 758 So.2d 124.
It is well settled that the granting of summary judgment is proper only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. LSA-C.C.P. art. 966(B). Herein, there are no genuine issues of material fact. However, considering our conclusion that the facts asserted constitute a compensable occupational disease, we find that summary judgment is inappropriate because the mover has failed to show its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the WCJ granting summary judgment in favor of Riverview and remand for further proceedings. Costs are assessed to Riverview Medical Center.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
|