 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Edmiston v. City of Hobbs and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.6/17/1997
an unknown preexisting condition, osteoporosis, which had not yet affected his ability to work. . While riding a horse, the worker sustained a compression fracture of a spinal vertebra, which combined with the osteoporosis to disable him totally. . The Supreme Court found that the worker was entitled to compensation for the entire resulting disability even though it would not have been as great without the preexisting condition. . The Court found that a causal connection and a right to compensation existed when an "injury is to a bone, and the disease being suffered is to the bones, and the total disability results from the concurrence of the two factors," even though there had been no finding that the injury had aggravated or accelerated the preexisting disease. Id.
{11} More recently, in Leo, this Court addressed the effect of a preexisting condition upon a disability determination when the worker's preexisting heart and lung problems restricted the treatment and recovery of a workplace back injury . . After reviewing the recent extensive legislative revisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, the Court determined that the legislature intended the new provisions of the Act to be implemented in a manner consistent with New Mexico case law on preexisting conditions and cited Reynolds as an example of that law. . The Court reaffirmed the principle that when a preexisting physical impairment combines with the impairment from a work injury to produce disability, the two must be considered together when determining worker's permanent partial disability. Id.
{12} These two cases support Worker's claims of legal error. First, the WCJ's distinction between the causal effects of a preexisting impairment as opposed to a preexisting condition is erroneous as a matter of law. Employer argued, and apparently persuaded the WCJ, that it is only responsible when a workplace injury combines with an actual impairment which has made itself known, as opposed to a latent preexisting condition such as the multiple myeloma in this case and the osteoporosis in Reynolds. Employer contends that Leo was conditioned upon preexisting heart and lung impairments, which were known to the worker. Therefore, the effects of a preexisting condition that is unknown or latent cannot be considered in determining the degree of a worker's disability. As further support for this position, Employer points to the Subsequent Injury Act (SIA), which was enacted to encourage employers to hire the workers with known disabilities by compensating employers for any impairment attributable to the preexisting disability. See NMSA 1978, ยงยง 52-2-1, -14 (Repl. Pamp. 1991). Employer argues that allowing workers to recover workers' compensation benefits for a disability partially caused by an unknown preexisting condition, when the employer would be ineligible for pro rata compensation from the Fund, would be unfair. Employer suggests that the legislature intended that recovery for the worker be reciprocal with an employer's ability to recover under the SIA.
{13} Employer's argument does not persuade us. First, although the worker in Leo did have a known preexisting condition, we do not read the opinion to turn on that point nor to establish that as a requirement for future cases involving preexisting conditions, and we so hold. The Leo opinion relied upon the precedent established in Reynolds in which the preexisting condition was unknown before the workplace accident. See ("In this case, we believe Claimant's situation is similar to that of the worker in Reynolds ; thus, we conclude that in determining Claimant's residual physical capacity, the Judge correctly applied the applicable law and considered the effects of both the accidental inj
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|