 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Suits v. M & M Mars10/5/2005
presented evidence that they provided help with all of her medical restrictions and that she was absent from work for three days without authorization. The trial court resolved this conflicting evidence by accepting the employer's evidence on this legal point. We cannot say the evidence preponderates against the court's conclusion.
Analysis - Psychological Injury of Depression
The Chancellor dismissed this claim upon finding the greater weight of the evidence indicated her state of depression was not related to the physical injury but was due to her many personal family problems and because of the loss of her job .
On appeal plaintiff contends the Chancellor was in error by improperly relying on a psychologist's opinion as to the cause of plaintiff's psychiatric condition and impairment and also in excluding and not considering the testimony of the only competent medical doctor as to the causation and permanency of plaintiff's condition.
Dr. Kevin Ferguson, a psychiatrist, testified concerning plaintiff's mental condition of depression. He said his opinion that plaintiff was suffering from major depression as a result of the work- related injury was based on the history plaintiff had given indicating that before the accident she was very happy, was enjoying a good life and was not suffering from any psychiatric problems. His medical notes were somewhat skimpy and never mentioned a diagnosis or impairment rating. The doctor first saw her almost three years after the accident and he did not have any medical records from other doctors.
Dr. Susan O'Hara, a clinical psychologist, saw plaintiff both before and after the accident and testified that plaintiff told her before the accident she was suffering from depression because of numerous personal family problems and after the accident she said she was not aware of a work-related injury as it had not been mentioned during her sessions with plaintiff.
The Chancellor found that Doctor Fergusons's opinion was not based on an accurate history and therefore declined to accept his opinion as to the cause of plaintiff's state of depression. We believe the greater weight of the evidence supports this finding of the trial court.
It is also argued that the trial court erred in relying on the testimony of psychologist O'Hara. We have examined her testimony closely and find that she did not attempt to diagnose her condition other than repeating what plaintiff had told her about being very depressed. She did not state an opinion as to the cause or permanency of her state of depression. We find this witness did not testify beyond her qualifications and the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's acceptance of this evidence.
Analysis - Lung Condition
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in dismissing her claim for a breathing problem or lung condition.
The original complaint was filed during October 1999 and alleged an accident causing a neck and back injury . During October 2002 plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to allege (1) she had been exposed to certain chemicals during the course of her employment which "caused and/or exacerbated her asthma" condition and (2) she was suffering from a psychological injury as a result of the accident. The trial court allowed the amendment of the psychological injury but denied the broader claim of the lung injury as it appeared to constitute a new and different cause of action.
During March 2002 a second motion to amend was filed. The motion sought to amend to allege plaintiff was "experiencing shortness of breath and exacerbation of her respiratory problems as a resul
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|