 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Easton v. J.D. Denson Mowing Company2/5/2002
s the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses as well as how much weight their testimony should be given." Id. at 653, 508 S.E.2d at 834.
Where expert medical testimony is required to establish causation, "the expert testimony need not show that the work incident caused the injury to a 'reasonable degree of medical certainty.'" Peagler v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 138 N.C. App. 593, 599, 532 S.E.2d 207, 211 (2000) (quoting Cooke v. P.H.Glatfelter/Ecusta, 130 N.C. App. 220, 224, 502 S.E.2d 419, 422 (1998)). Rather, there must be some competent evidence "that the accident at least might have or could have produced the particular disability in question." Click v. Freight Carriers, 300 N.C. 164, 167, 265 S.E.2d 389, 391 (1980) (emphasis added).
The Commission found as fact that Easton's fractured vertebrae, spinal cord lesion, and myelopathy were caused by the 3 September 1997 accident, and that Easton's neuropathy, although pre-existing, was "probably" aggravated by the fall and resulting myelopathy. Dr. Hinn testified in his deposition on 19 November 1998 that it was his presumption that Easton's fall on 3 September 1997 was the cause of Easton's fractured vertebrae. Dr. Hinn further testified that Easton's fall from the tractor was the "best explanation" for his spinal cord lesion, and that it was "quite possible" that Easton sustained a myelopathy as a result of the fall. Dr. Hinn also testified that he considered it "a distinct possibility and perhaps quite likely" that Easton's myelopathy was a source of his symptomology after the fall. According to Dr. Hinn, it was a "distinct possibility" that Easton's spinal cord injury caused a myelopathy that increased the amount of Easton's disability or symptomology, or increased his likelihood of problems.
We conclude that competent evidence in the record supports the Commission's finding of fact 17. Defendants do not challenge the remaining findings of fact; nonetheless, we conclude that those findings of fact are likewise supported by competent evidence inthe record. Furthermore, we conclude that the Commission's findings support its conclusions of law. Accordingly, the Commission's 13 October 2000 opinion and award is,
Affirmed.
Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and THOMAS concur.
|