 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McMains v. Aztec Well Service9/14/1994
tort case, future medical benefits cannot be denied in a workers' compensation proceeding based solely on a prediction regarding future medical needs. In (Ct. App. 1986), the trial court had dismissed with prejudice a claim for future medical benefits. We held that a trial court "is without authority to limit or restrict in advance future medical benefits once a compensable injury is established." . We later elaborated:
here there was an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment, where there is a claim for current and past medical benefits together with a claim for unspecified and unspecifiable future medical benefits, and where the court finds that the defendants are not liable for the past and current medical expenses, either because plaintiff has fully recovered or because plaintiff is faking pain or for whatever reason, the court may dismiss the main part of the claim with prejudice, but it cannot dismiss the claim for future medical benefits with prejudice. In this situation, a court may enter a judgment for future medical benefits, but such a judgment would be essentially meaningless. If plaintiff incurred medical expenses relating to a work-related injury in the future, he would still have to prove them in order to recover. Thus, the better course may be to dismiss the claim for future medical expenses without prejudice.
. In St. C), we further explained:
Since the trial court cannot practically determine the worker's future medical needs at the time of entry of a judgment finding disability, Section 52-1-49 authorizes entry of a judgment directing the payment of a worker's reasonable and necessary future medical expenses and invests the court with continuing jurisdiction to enforce such orders.
In light of the WCJ's finding that Worker's disability was caused by both the 1991 accident at Aztec and the 1992 accident at Precision, she could not properly rule that future medical care could not possibly be the responsibility, even in part, of Aztec. We therefore set aside the ruling regarding apportionment of future medical benefits.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the apportionment of liability for future medical payments.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HARRIS L HARTZ, Judge
WE CONCUR:
THOMAS A. DONNELLY, Judge
RICHARD C. BOSSON, Judge
|