 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Prillaman v. Community Medical Cntr.3/11/1994
, 51 St.Rep. 189
Submitted on Briefs November 18, 1993.
Rebecca Prillaman appeals from a Workers' Compensation Court decision denying her compensation for her injury . We reverse and remand.
We consider the following issue on appeal:
Did the Workers' Compensation Court err in concluding that medical opinion evidence was required to meet claimant's burden that it was "more probable than not" that an accident occurred at work and that it caused the claimant's condition?
Rebecca Prillaman (claimant) is a nurse at Community Medical Center in the outpatient surgery department. She suffered two lumbar vertebrae fractures and contends that the injuries occurred while at work on March 4, 1992, following her attempt to lift a patient. The patient was in recovery from surgery but was not responding as expected. In an attempt to help the patient come out of anesthesia more quickly, claimant lifted patient from a prone position to a sitting position without assistance from the patient.
Claimant testified that she felt the pain in her back immediately but that she was determined to finish her shift because there was no other nurse on duty. She was in great pain throughout the evening and remained in pain throughout the night. Because she was the only nurse scheduled for the next day's 2:00 p.m. shift, claimant went to work, but she testified that within an hour she was forced to call her supervisor because the pain was unbearable.
Claimant went to the medical center emergency room for back x-rays which revealed compression fractures in two vertebrae. She first sought medical help from Dr. Lennard Wilson, a neurologist. Dr. Wilson determined that this type of fracture was "extremely remarkable for this type of activity" and referred her to an orthopedic surgeon. Claimant then went to see Dr. James Burton, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Burton stated that, although her back injury was unusual given the activity that spawned it, he had no reason to doubt that her injury was caused by the incident of March 4, 1992.
Did the Workers' Compensation Court err in concluding that medical opinion evidence was required to meet claimant's burden that it was "more probable than not" that an accident occurred at work and that it caused the claimant's condition?
This case involves the determination of when liability attaches to the insurer for purposes of workers' compensation. We are concerned with the statutory interpretation of § 39-71-407(2), MCA, and the interplay between this statute and § 39-71-119, MCA, to which subsection (a) refers and to the interplay between subsection (a) and (b) of § 39-71-407 (2), MCA, which provides:
(2)(a) An insurer is liable for an injury as defined in 39-71-119, if the claimant establishes it is more probable than not that:
(i) a claimed injury occurred; or
(ii) a claimed injury aggravated a pre-existing condition.
(b) Proof that it was medically possible that a claimed injury occurred or that such claimed injury aggravated a pre-existing condition is not sufficient to establish liability. (Emphasis added.)
The Workers' Compensation Court interpreted this statute to mean that the "more probable than not" burden of proof required of claimant must be based on "medical opinion." Our review of a Workers' Compensation Court's legal interpretation is plenary. See St. John's Lutheran Church v. State Compensation Ins. Fund (1992), 252 Mont. 516, 830 P.2d 1271.
Subsection (a) of the above mentioned statute specifically attaches the burden of proof "more probable than not" to §
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|