 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Foy v. Interstate Brands/Merita9/6/2005
estions[,]" the North Carolina Supreme Court has held "only an expert can give competent opinion evidence as to the cause of the injury." Click v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 300 N.C. 164, 167, 265 S.E.2d 389, 391 (1980). "However, when such expert opinion testimony is based merely upon speculation and conjecture . . . it is not sufficiently reliable to qualify as competent evidence on issues of medical causation." Young v. Hickory Bus. Furniture, 353 N.C. 227, 230, 538 S.E.2d 912, 915 (2000).
In its Finding of Fact #2, the Full Commission found plaintiff's injury occurred when he was attempting to move a fully loaded transport rack during one of his deliveries on 5 July 2001. While the wording used by the Commission in a portion of its finding may not be exactly as quoted in the record (plaintiff's hands "slipped from the rack, causing his head and body to snap backwards"), the Commission's finding that plaintiff "felt immediate pain and loss of feeling in his leg and arm" is supported by competent evidence. Plaintiff testified the onset of his symptoms arose almost immediately after the incident involving thetransport rack. Before the incident with the transport rack, plaintiff was moving around normally; he had loaded his truck earlier that morning and had unloaded several racks without any indication of a problem with his right arm or leg. The onset of plaintiff's symptoms occurred only after a transport rack got caught while plaintiff was pulling it.
Furthermore, Dr. Hsu testified at his deposition that "based on the history, if the symptoms began on July 5, . . . then more likely than not, that's when the injury occurred . . . ." Dr. Hsu further testified when " ervical myelopathy from cord compression . . . sets in, the condition is more persistent. It doesn't just come and go." Dr. Hsu's testimony concerning the causation of the injury is more than mere speculation and is sufficient to establish the injury was caused by the work-related accident. These facts are sufficient to support the conclusion of the Commission that plaintiff sustained an injury resulting from a specific traumatic incident arising out of and in the course of his employment. This assignment of error is overruled.
II.
Defendant next argues the Full Commission erred by finding the plaintiff did not suffer from a pre-existing injury . As defendant acknowledges in its brief, it is well established that "aggravation of a pre-existing condition which results in loss of wage earning capacity is compensable under the workers' compensation laws in our state." Smith v. Champion Int'l, 134 N.C. App. 180, 182, 517 S.E.2d 164, 166 (1999). Furthermore, " he work-related injuryneed not be the sole cause of the problems to render an injury compensable. If the work-related accident contributed in some reasonable degree to plaintiff's disability, is entitled to compensation." Hoyle v. Carolina Associated Mills, 122 N.C. App. 462, 465-66, 470 S.E.2d 357, 359 (1996) (citations omitted).
As discussed in Issue I, there is competent evidence to support the Commission's finding that plaintiff's injury was actually caused by a specific traumatic incident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Therefore, plaintiff has shown the work-related accident was the sole cause of his injury and not due to any pre-existing injury. This assignment of error is overruled.
III.
Defendant also contends the Full Commission erred by concluding plaintiff is totally disabled and entitled to temporary total disability benefits. Defendant assigns error to two conclusions of law made by the Commission:
3. As a result of the compensable injury of 5 July 2001, plainti
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|