 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Muhammad v. Laidlaw Transit6/24/2005
curring in the result.
To establish medical causation in this case, the employee's surviving spouse was required to introduce substantial evidence indicating that the danger or risk to which the employee was exposed was a contributing cause of the injury . Ex parte Trinity Industries, Inc., 680 So. 2d 262, 269 (Ala. 1996). In this case, the trial court found that the evidence did not support a finding of medical causation. Given the particular facts of this case, Dr. Mulpur's expert medical testimony was crucial to the surviving spouse's contention that medical causation exists. Id. However, Dr. Mulpur gave equivocal testimony concerning the possible causes of the employee's injury. Given the equivocal nature of that testimony, the trial court could have found that the employee's surviving spouse failed to meet his burden of introducing substantial evidence of medical causation. Therefore, I believe that the trial court was correct in its judgment.
CRAWLEY, Presiding Judge, dissenting.
The trial court determined incorrectly that the employee suffered a mental injury rather than physical injury. Additionally, the trial court erred in not applying the appropriate standards for legal causation and medical causation. I must therefore dissent.
The standard of review in a workers' compensation case was stated by our supreme court in Ex parte Trinity Industries, Inc., 680 So. 2d 262 (Ala. 1996).
" e will not reverse the trial court's finding of fact if that finding is supported by substantial evidence -- if that finding is supported by 'evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.'"
Ex parte Trinity Indus., 680 So. 2d at 268-69 (quoting West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So. 2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989)).
However, " n reviewing the standard of proof set forth herein and other legal issues, review by the Court of Civil Appeals shall be without a presumption of correctness." § 25-5-81(e)(1), Ala. Code 1975.
The trial court analyzed the employee's injury as a nonaccidental injury. The trial court concluded:
"The Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to satisfy medical causation and legal causation as required in the instant workers' compensation action. The Court notes that although the [employee] may have suffered from some 'work related fatigue and/or stress,' the plaintiff has failed to establish that any such work related fatigue or stress was the proximate cause of the seizure that led to the decedent's death as opposed to other causes. Moreover, the Court notes that any mental or emotional stress which may produce physical symptoms is in the nature of a mental injury for which § 25-5- 1(9) Code of Alabama prevents recovery. Likewise, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the plaintiff's seizure was brought on by an occupational disease; there has been a failure to establish that at the pertinent times at issue, the worker was exposed by her employment to an hazard in excess of those hazards ordinarily incident to employment in general and different in character from those found in the general run of occupations. The Court specifically finds that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the decedent's death was brought by a non-accidental injury. The Court finds that the death of the plaintiff's decedent is not compensable under the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act."
(Emphasis added.)
The employee suffered a physical injury within the meaning of § 25-5-1(9), Ala. Code 1975. Under the Workers' Compensation Act, an injury does not in
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|