 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Edmond Public Schools v. Cook12/15/1992
Rehearing Denied March 2, 1993.
Certiorari Denied May 4, 1993.
EDMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND THE STATE INSURANCE FUND, PETITIONERS,
v.
RAYMOND L. COOK, AND THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, RESPONDENTS.
Proceeding to review an Order of the Workers' Compensation Court, Appealed to a three Judge Panel.
David Custar, Oklahoma City, for petitioners.
Sidney A. Musser, Jr., Harry J. Kouri, III, Oklahoma City, for respondents.
VACATED.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JONES, Judge.
Edmond Schools seek review of the Court En Banc's Order affirming an award of compensation for Raymond L. Cook (Claimant). Edmond Schools assert, herein, Claimant's medical evidence is incompetent to support the trial court's award.
Claimant allegedly sustained a work related injury to his lower back while working as a custodian for Edmond Schools. At hearing on January 22, 1992, the trial court awarded Claimant 10% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, over and above a pre-existing 42.5% disability to the back. On appeal to the Court En Banc, the Three Judge Panel affirmed the decision of the trial court. Edmond Schools and insurance carrier have perfected this appeal to this Court.
On review, Edmond Schools argues the competency of the medical report of Claimant's medical expert, Dr. H. and refers to a prior back injury and subsequent settlement in 1988 between Claimant and a previous employer, Balcor Property Management. We find the "any competent evidence test" of Parks v. Norman Municipal Hospital, 684 P.2d 548 (Okl. 1984), is inapplicable to the present case. Parks does not support the affirmation of an award by an incompetent medical report or the lack of a factual finding derived from examination of the record.
In Special Indemnity Fund v. Stockton, 653 P.2d 194 (Okl. 1982), the Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed the issue of explicit guidelines for the written medical evidence pertaining to an award of permanent total disability. Although the present case does not pertain to total disability, the Stockton Court recognized the general rule that an award of compensation must rest on competent evidence when it is supported by the general tenor, and the intent of the medical testimony. However, a mere statement that a claimant has a certain percentage of disability, which happens to be greater than the amount previously awarded at a prior hearing, is insufficient, and there must be evidence of a medical nature indicated through objective findings, tests, and examinations. The evaluation must be more than a mere numbers game. A medical opinion relative to the mere percentage of disability contained in a medical report is not sufficient to constitute "competency" under The Workers' Compensation Act. 653 P.2d at 200.
Reviewing Dr. H's medical report in that light, We find that it is insufficient to Support the award of 10% partial disability to the body as a whole. That portion of the report, referring to Claimant's previous back injury, is in substantial disaccord with Stockton, the most notable insufficiency being: the previous injury of Claimant is never even described. Dr. H instead makes broad statements such as "He injured his back in 1987 and was awarded a 43% permanent partial disability", but fails to describe the injury. Later Dr. H states that ". . . the patient [Claimant] had a 20% permanent partial disability of the whole person from the residual from his previous back injury
Page 1 2 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|