 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
FRYE v. SMITH-DOYLE CONTRACTORS6/26/1997
s under our workers' compensation law. The court found:
e now join the majority of jurisdictions who permit recovery of workers' compensation benefits upon proof of a chain of causation directly linking an employment injury to a worker's "loss of normal judgment and domination by a disturbance of the mind, causing the suicide."
Under either the Schofield [v. White, 250 Iowa 571, 95 N.W.2d 40 (1959)] standard or the chain-of-causation rule we adopt today, however, the suicide must be traced directly to some injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
Id. at 857 (citations omitted).
The burden rests upon Rebecca to show by a preponderance of evidence that the work-related injury caused the depression which led to Robert's suicide. See id. at 856. A possibility of causation is not sufficient; a probability is necessary. See id.; and see Holmes v. Bruce Motor Freight, Inc., 215 N.W.2d 296, 297 (Iowa 1974).
Dr. Rose and Dr. Gallagher both gave testimony in this matter. Both seemingly agreed Robert's suicide was a result of his depression. However, Dr. Rose opined Robert's back injury caused the depression resulting in his suicide. Dr. Gallagher concluded Robert's depression was caused by a multitude of factors. He stated it was possible one of these factors may have been his back injury. Although he suggested the back injury was an aggravating factor, he explained it was not necessarily the causal factor. He noted Robert had a long history of depression prior to the injury at Smith-Doyle and could not state with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that prior injury was a probable cause of Robert's depression and ultimate suicide.
The question of causal connection is essentially within the domain of expert testimony. Lithcote Co. v. Ballenger, 471 N.W.2d 64, 66 (Iowa App. 1991). The weight to be given the expert opinion is for the agency as fact finder to determine. Expert opinion testimony, even if uncontroverted, may be accepted or rejected in whole or in part by the trier of fact. Id.
In the case of a conflict in the evidence, the court is not free to interfere with the commissioner's findings. Schreckengast v. Hammermills, Inc., 369 N.W.2d 809, 811 (Iowa 1985).
The industrial commissioner relied on the opinion of Dr. Gallagher in reversing the award of death benefits. He noted Dr. Gallagher had given consideration to a large number of documents regarding Robert's psychological history prior to the injury . He found Dr. Rose did not indicate he had considered this history in arriving at his conclusion the injury was the cause of the depression which resulted in Robert's suicide.
As we stated in Riley:
A reviewing court may interfere with the agency's findings only if the evidence is uncontradicted and reasonable minds could not draw different inferences. Legal error is present under the substantial evidence analysis when an agency reaches a conclusion based on uncontroverted evidence which is contrary to the conclusion reasonable minds would reach. If evidence is in conflict, however, the reviewing court has no room to interfere.
Riley, 532 N.W.2d at 491-92.
After careful review of the record, we find there is substantial evidence supporting the findings of the industrial commissioner. Further, we find substantial evidence supporting the findings of the industrial commissioner that Rebecca has not met her burden of showing the work-related injury was a substantial factor in bringing about Robert's suicide. We affirm the decision of the district court.
AFFIRMED. [569 NW2d Page 157]
Page 1 2 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|