 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Subsequent Injury Fund v. Devore6/22/1989
C.R.S. (1988 Cum. Supp.)
In Denver v. Industrial Commission, supra, the claimant's industrial injuries were to his back, while the non-industrial impairments that contributed to his total disability consisted of glaucoma, arthritis, asthma, alcohol abuse, and obesity. The nature of the latter conditions was such that any disabilities resulting from those conditions were separate from the disability resulting from his back injuries. His back injuries, for example, could not be said to have been superimposed upon, or to have aggravated, his glaucoma or his asthma, thereby rendering either condition more severe. These conditions certainly did not combine with the industrial trauma to create a single, unapportionable, disability. See Newbury v. Vogel, 151 Colo. 520, 379 P.2d 811 (1963).
Further, unlike the dormant osteoarthritic condition in claimant's knee, which was not disabling, nor even symptomatic, before the industrial injury , the conditions in Denver v. Industrial Commission were independently disabling prior to the industrial injury.
We conclude, therefore, that, while SIF cannot be held liable for any part of a total disability contributed to by a non-industrial disability, an industrial disability is no less an industrial disability because a pre-existing, non-disabling, physical condition increases the severity of that disability. See Subsequent Injury Fund v. State Compensation Insurance Authority, 768 P.2d 751 (Colo. App. 1988) (cert. granted February 21, 1989). Thus, on the undisputed facts contained in this record, the Panel correctly held that SIF was liable for 50% of the benefits due to claimant.
Order affirmed.
|