 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Montoya v. Kirk-Mayer Inc.8/23/1995
he utilized the AMA Guide to the evaluation of permanent impairment in evaluating Worker. He also testified that it was likely that he did not use the third edition of the AMA Guide in evaluating Worker's condition because he disagreed with its methodology for rating impairment based on loss of range of motion.
23. Dr. Cecil testified that he examined Worker on December 23, 1992, and that his examination revealed that Worker had a twenty-percent impairment as of that date. Thereafter, the WCJ appointed Dr. Benson as an independent medical examiner. Dr. Benson testified that based on his examination of Worker and on the AMA Guide, third edition, Worker had an impairment rating of twenty-one percent as a result of the work-related accident.
24. Although in adopting her finding of fact, the WCJ rejected Dr. Legant's opinion that Worker had no impairment on April 27, 1992, the WCJ nevertheless could accept Dr. Legant's opinion as to the date when Worker reached maximum medical improvement. Because Dr. Legant indicated he did not base his impairment rating on the AMA Guide, the WCJ could properly disregard that portion of the doctor's opinion. See ) (fact finder may reject expert's opinion in whole or in part).
25. In voicing his opinion that Worker was twenty-one percent impaired, Dr. Benson stated he believed that Worker probably reached maximum medical improvement about one year after his injury . We believe the WCJ could properly infer, from the opinions of Drs. Legant and Benson, that Worker reached maximum medical improvement on April 27, 1992, and determine at that point Worker's disability should properly be rated at twenty-one percent. See (in considering sufficiency of evidence, reviewing court views testimony and evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party and disregards inferences or evidence to contrary); ) (appellate court will view facts and evidence in light most favorable to support trial court's decision, indulge in all reasonable inferences in support of court's findings, and disregard inferences or evidence to the contrary); ) (same).
Conclusion
26. The order granting summary judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
27. IT IS SO ORDERED.
28. THOMAS A. DONNELLY, Judge
WE CONCUR:
RUDY S. APODACA, Chief Judge
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
|