 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
White v. Ford12/17/1992
w he was entitled to additional medical benefits. However, a letter from Aetna to White dated March 2, 1983, expressly advised him that the case remained open and that he could qualify for additional medical benefits.
White relied on the testimony of Dr. Nelson whose August 1988 notes made no indication that White had been experiencing back problems between 1982 and 1988. Dr. Nelson concluded that White's industrial injury set the stage for potential re-injury down the road, an occurrence which he thought had happened several times, including the 1988 incident. Dr. Nelson requested an MRI which did not show a herniated disc but did show a bulge of a disc. He testified that he could not say to any degree of certainty whether that bulge existed in 1982 or developed subsequently. Dr. Nelson recommended light work as he had originally done in 1982. As previously mentioned Dr. Espinosa assessed no limitations in May of 1990 as to White's employment. In February 1991, Dr. Shaw, a specialist in occupational medicine, opined that White's condition was mechanical, found no evidence of neurological deficit or skeletal abnormality, and had no reason to preclude White from returning to work as a construction laborer. Dr. Shaw could not attribute any of White's symptomatology to his 1982 muscle strain. In addition, the record contains substantial evidence on the issue including the following: (1) White's representations and admissions at Rimrock; (2) White's representations to medical and psychiatric professionals that he did not experience chronic back pain; (3) White's representations to SRS employees who found him ineligible for rehabilitation services; (4) White's contradictory statements in his deposition that he had an awareness of a constant uncomfortableness and subsequent testimony at trial of chronic back pain; and (5) White's continued construction employment during the years 1983 to 1986.
The Workers' Compensation Court concluded that White had failed to prove an entitlement to permanent partial disability benefits beyond the permanent impairment award already paid. The court pointed out that White had the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of credible evidence and referred to the statutory definition. The court then concluded that White had failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the injury he received in 1982 was responsible for or proximately caused his current employment condition. The court then pointed out that in this case the medical evidence is completely contradictory, and at best establishes only a possibility of a causal link between White's employment and the industrial injury - which is insufficient to find compensability.
The court finally concluded that given the prolonged lapse in medical treatment and other evidence discounting the extent of White's pain and discomfort, the totality of the evidence preponderated in favor of finding that White's employment situation is not a direct result of his compensable industrial injury . The foregoing conclusions are supported by substantial evidence in the record. We therefore affirm that holding of the Workers' Compensation Court.
White disputes the Workers' Compensation Court's finding that his chemical use had an adverse effect on his employment by his own admission in the Rimrock Foundation records and other testimony before the court. He argues that such findings are not material and that reliance on them is clear error. The record demonstrates that White entered a treatment program at Rimrock in 1987, but did not successfully complete the aftercare program. He lapsed into subsequent chemical abuse as late as 1989. Mr. and Mrs. White both testified in conne
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|