 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davis v. B.F. Goodrich2/4/1992
As Corrected February 12, 1992.
RONNIE B. DAVIS, PETITIONER,
v.
B.F. GOODRICH, OWN RISK, AND THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, RESPONDENTS.
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals, Division III.
Richard A. Bell, Norman, for petitioner.
W. Neil Wilson, Wallace, Owens, Landers, Gee, Morrow, Wilson, Watson & James, Miami, for respondent, B.F. Goodrich Co.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF APPEALS' OPINION VACATED; ORDER OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT SUSTAINED.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: HODGES, Vice Chief Justice.
The issue on appeal is whether there is any competent evidence to support the Workers' Compensation Court's finding that the claimant did not sustain or suffer an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. We find that the Workers' Compensation Court's order is supported by competent evidence.
Ronnie Davis (claimant) filed a workers' compensation claim alleging injury to his lungs and upper respiratory system caused by continuous exposure to hazardous chemicals, including industrial talc, and fumes, while employed by B.F. Goodrich (employer). Claimant began working for the employer on March 15, 1971 and worked there for fifteen years.
The claimant testified to the following. In 1979, he smoked "a pack of cigarettes a day and had been smoking for about 15 years at that rate." There was no limit to the distance he could walk. He had not missed any work because of breathing problems. He was not taking any medication, either prescription or over-the-counter, for breathing problems. Further, he had never seen a doctor for breathing problems. He stated that he had a productive cough but it was "very minimal."
At the trial, both the claimant and the employer submitted written medical reports. Objections to the competency and probative value were made to each report. The judge did not take the objection under advisement but stated that she would consider the arguments to the claimant's medical report. She ruled on the objection by admitting both reports without reservation and did not withdraw the admission. Neither party has addressed the trial tribunal's ruling on the claimant's report or the competency or probative value of that report in this appeal. Because that issue was not appealed, the trial judge's ruling is final and is not an issue before this Court.
The claimant's medical expert, Dr. Miller, rated the claimant as having 20% impairment to his lungs and 10% impairment to his upper respiratory system, resulting in 30% impairment to the body. The employer's medical expert, Dr. Mahaffey, rated the claimant's impairment at zero.
Dr. Miller reported that claimant had smoked about 20 cigarettes a day for 20 years. He testified that cigarette smoking could cause a cough and shortness of breath. Dr. Miller testified that in restrictive lung disease the forced vital capacity (FVC) should be decreased and that in obstructive lung disease the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV ) should be decreased. He testified that the claimant's FVC test was "very close to normal" but that the FEV fell into class two (mild impairment), indicating obstructive lung disease. Dr. Miller stated that " igarette smoking most generally causes obstructive" lung disease and that exposure to talc would probably cause both restrictive and obstructive lung disease.
Dr. Miller did not examine any of the claimant's prior medical records. His report did not indi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|