 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Karber/Interstate Air v. Industrial Commission3/17/1994
ult of the 1971 [industrial shoulder] injury. Rather, the testimony supports the Conclusion that the direct and natural result of the 1971 accident was a stabilized shoulder which . . . would have continued in that condition but for the intervening auto accident. Moreover, the 1971 injury played no role in causing the accident to occur. Under these circumstances, . . . new injury cannot legally be the consequence of the original injury.
Id. at 317, 670 P.2d at 422 (dictum).
Here, the relationship between the two injuries is stronger than in East. There, the shoulder was stable after the first shoulder surgery for several years, the industrial injury was only one among several causes of the later instability, and the intervening accident was both unrelated to the industrial injury and severe. In contrast, in this case claimant consciously protected his industrially injured right knee by landing on his left leg. Furthermore, given the ALJ's acceptance of Dr. Krigsten's opinion, this event caused an acute injury to the left leg.
We believe the only Conclusion one can reach from this record is that the work injury is the legal cause of the later left knee injury. Had Argonaut disputed claimant's credibility with evidence that anyone who trips with one leg and is about to fall will naturally place full weight on the opposite leg whether recuperating from a knee injury or not, we would have been constrained to support an award of no compensability. But Argonaut never questioned the credibility of claimant's testimony that he injured his left knee while consciously attempting to protect his industrially injured right knee from reinjury. Furthermore, Argonaut has not challenged the ALJ's finding that "[claimant's] statement that he tried to protect the right knee was not contradicted by any other witness, expert or otherwise, and therefore, it was found to be credible." Thus, applying the proper test of causation announced in Lou Grubb, we conclude that a substantial causal relationship exists "between the industrial injury and the later disability or need for treatment." Lou Grubb, 174 Ariz. at 26, 846 P.2d at 839.
We are not persuaded by Argonaut's argument that as a matter of law legal causation does not exist here because claimant's industrially injured right knee had nothing to do with the initial trip and fall. Had claimant chosen not to protect his industrially injured, vulnerable right knee, he might have sustained further injury to it. In that event, this case would fit squarely within those Arizona authorities holding that where claimant's conduct is reasonable, a later injury to the predisposed part of the claimant's body is a compensable consequence of the industrial injury. See, e.g., Klosterman. Under these particular facts, to preclude claimant from obtaining benefits for the left knee injury would penalize him for what is, in effect, his effort to mitigate the damages to his industrially injured right knee.
III. CONCLUSION
We hold that although the ALJ applied the wrong causation test, under the right test this record supports only one Conclusion. The relationship between the industrial injury and the later left knee injury is substantial enough that the left knee injury is within the range of compensable consequences of the industrial injury. For the above reasons we affirm.
PHILIP E. TOCI, Presiding Judge
Department C
CONCURRING:
SUSAN A. EHRLICH, Judge
E. G. NOYES, JR., Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|