 |
 |
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
We wrote, "The statutory construction on which the [lower court's award] depends would eliminate the causation requirement."
{34} Most closely in point to the present case is . The worker had suffered a compensable hand injury. At the time of the injury he had emphysema. The emphysema got worse, until he was unable to work. He claimed entitlement to total disability benefits on the ground that his emphysema, combined with his hand injury, rendered him totally disabled. We rejected the claim that worker's emphysema provided a basis for increasing compensation benefits.
{35} I now turn to the law in other states. To be sure, the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act has a number of unique provisions, which makes reliance on out-of-state cases unwise on many issues. But because the language regarding causation is fairly uniform among workers' compensation statutes, we have typically looked to the law elsewhere for guidance on novel issues with respect to causation. Reynolds, our leading case on the question, sets a clear precedent in its approach. Rather than subjecting the language of the New Mexico statute to minute scrutiny, the opinion surveys the cases from around the country. See also Aragon (relying on non-New Mexico authority to resolve novel causation question).
{36} With respect to the narrow issue that divides the majority and me, case law in other jurisdictions is scant, but it appears to support my interpretation of New Mexico law. In Russell v. Industrial Commission, 533 P.2d 706, 710, 23 Ariz. App. 398 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975), the court wrote:
The employee did have some pre-existing conditions not affected by the industrial injury that, because of natural progression, became disabling subsequent to the injury. While he is entitled to collect compensation for all disabilities that were caused by the industrial injury, he is not entitled to collect workman's compensation for any disability that developed through the natural progression of the disease, subsequent to the industrial injury.
Although Arizona has a statute requiring apportionment of disability when the worker was already suffering a disability at the time of the work-related accident, that statute was not applicable in the case. The court relied simply on the statutory requirement of causation. 533 P.2d at 708-09.
{37} Adopting a similar view, Searles v. Johnston Cement, 101 Ore. App. 589, 792 P.2d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 1990), held that the worker's disability should be calculated without consideration of his colon cancer, which preexisted the work-related accident but was in remission at the time of the accident. Also relevant is Giesbrecht v. Board of Review, 183 Utah Adv. Rep. 78, 828 P.2d 544 (Utah Ct. App. 1992). In that case the worker broke his leg on the job . Treatment of the fracture revealed a tumor in the leg, which then had to be amputated. The court denied expenses and disability benefits related to the cancer. Although the cancer likely contributed to the fracture, there was no causal connection in the other direction. Id. at 547.
{38} Thus, the general rule is that a worker is not entitled to compensation benefits for disability arising from the progression or worsening of a pre-accident condition. The worker is entitled to benefits for disability arising from the combination of (1) the work-related injury and (2) the worker's preexisting condition at the time of the accident. But if the disability increases because of a post-accident worsening of the preexisting condition, that increase is not a natural and direct result of the accident and is therefore not compensable. This rule, however, is subject to an obvious exception. If the work-related
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.
|
|