 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Delhaize America4/29/2005
s, the Superior Court stated that "an intervening independent cause of incapacity will not remove the employer's liability for benefits as long as the prior injury remains a "cause" of the accident's ongoing conditions...."
The most recent case to address causation in this area is Barkley v. Johnson Controls. In this case the Superior Court discussed the concept of "direct and natural results" as to compensable injuries, and how the chain of causation may be broken by an employee's own negligent behavior.
It went on to state that, " nder this rule, absent such negligence, a weakened condition stemming from a compensable injury may be deemed the cause of an aggravation of the injury which occurs in a subsequent non-work related accident." It is clear from this line of cases that an employer is not relieved of responsibility for an employee's work-related injuries that are aggravated by a subsequent non-work related event that was not caused by the employee.
The Board ruled that King's current back problems are causally related to her 1996 Food Lion accident. The Board's decision in this regard is both in accordance with the applicable law and supported by substantial evidence in the record. King never completely recovered from the 1996 Food Lion accident. She had a permanent impairment to her back and she continued to experience back pain both before and after the 2000 automobile accident. Indeed, Dr. Kalamachi concluded that King's back problems were now so bad that she needed spinal fusion surgery.
Dr. Balu testified that King's current back problems were related to the 1996 Food Lion accident. His opinion was based on the fact that King had a bulging disc before the automobile accident that was made worse by the automobile accident. Dr. Balu's ultimate conclusion was that King had discogenic low back pain with a herniated disc that got worse after the automobile accident. Even Food Lion's own expert, Dr. Townsend, admitted that a portion of King's current back pain was related to the Food Lion accident. Thus, both Dr. Balu and Dr. Townsend agreed, at least to some extent, that King's current back problems were related to the Food Lion accident. It is obvious, as the Board concluded, that King's accident at Food Lion created a weakened condition in her back that was aggravated by the automobile accident. Given this, Food Lion is still responsible for King's injuries.
The Board discounted Dr. Townsend's testimony because of the manner in which he testified regarding the cause of King's current back problems. Dr. Townsend testified that "but for" the automobile accident, King would not have her current back problems and would not need treatment. The proper standard of causation to apply to King's injuries is whether or not they are a "direct and natural result" of the work-related accident. It was well within the Board's discretion to determine the proper weight to give to Dr. Townsend's testimony. The fact that Dr. Townsend applied the wrong standard of causation to the facts certainly supports the Board's decision to discount his testimony. Therefore, I affirm the Board's decision that King's current back injury was a direct result of the 1996 Food Lion accident.
II. Total Disability
Food Lion argues that the Board erred as a matter of law when it ruled that King was totally disabled as of May 14, 2003, the day that Dr. Balu placed her on "no work" status so that she could make arrangements to see Dr. Kalamachi for a surgical evaluation. The Board relied upon the Supreme Court's holding in Gilliard - Belfast v. Wendy's to support this decision. In Gilliard-Belfast the employee was taken out of work by her treating physician pe
Page 1 2 3 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|