Watts v. Borg Warner Automotive6/21/2005
"that the entirety of causation evidence" must "meet the reasonable degree of medical certainty standard necessary to establish a causal link between" the plaintiff's accident and their injury. Holley v.ACTS, Inc.,357 N.C. 228, 234, 581 S.E.2d. 750, 754 (2003); Edmonds v. Fresenius Med. Care, 165 N.C. App. 811, 600 S.E.2d 501 (2004) (J. Steelman, dissenting), rev'd per curiam, 359 N.C. 313, 608 S.E.2d 755 (2005); Alexander v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ___ N.C. App. ___, 603 S.E.2d 552 (2004) (J. Hudson dissenting), rev'd per curiam, 359 N.C. 403, 610 S.E.2d 374 (2005).
"Unless a causal connection between employment and injury is proved, the injury is not compensable. The burden of proving the causal relationship or connection rests with the claimant." Arp v. Parkdale Mills, Inc., 150 N.C. App. 266, 274, 563 S.E.2d 62, 68 (2002) (J. Tyson, dissenting), rev'd per curiam, 356 N.C. 657, 576 S.E.2d 326 (2003). "The rule of causal relation is 'the very sheet anchor of the Workmen's Compensation Act,' and has been adhered to in our decisions, and prevents our Act from being a general health and insurance benefit act." Id.(quoting Bryan v. First Free Will Baptist Church, 267 N.C. 111, 115, 147 S.E.2d 633, 635 (1966)).
"Although expert testimony as to the possible cause of a medical condition is admissible[,] . . . it is insufficient to prove causation, particularly 'when there is additional evidence or testimony showing the expert's opinion to be a guess or mere speculation.'" Edmonds,165 N.C. App. at 818, 600 S.E.2d at 506 (quoting Holley, 357 N.C. at 233, 581 S.E.2d. at 753).
"Although medical certainty is not required, an expert's 'speculation' is insufficient to establish causation." Holley,357 N.C. at 234, 581 S.E.2d. at 754. In Alexander,our Supreme Court held "the role of the Court of Appeals is 'limited to reviewingwhether any competent evidence supports the Commission's findings of fact and whether the findings of fact support the Commission's conclusions of law.'" ___ N.C. App. at ___, 603 S.E.2d at 558 (quoting Deese,352 N.C. at 116, 530 S.E.2d at 553).
Plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Moody, testified plaintiff's "work injury could have aggravated and caused the onset of symptoms in the neck and low back" or could have been caused by plaintiff's recreational weight lifting or working on his home. Plaintiff's family physician, Dr. Kelly, also testified concerning plaintiff's injuries, "I do not think that his whatever happened at work caused all this . . . ." Dr. Kelly later added, "I think it could have, could have aggravated, accelerated or contributed." This testimony is insufficient to prove causation.
edical experts were asked only whether "'a particular event or condition could or might have produced the result in question, not whether it did produce such result.'" Lockwood v. McCaskill, 262 N.C. 663, 668, 138 S.E.2d 541, 545 (1964) (quoting Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence § 137, at 332 (2d ed. 1963)). With the adoption of Rule 704 in 1983, experts were allowed to testify more definitively as to causation. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 704. While the "could" or "might" question format circumvented the admissibility problem, it led to confusion that such testimony was sufficient to prove causation. See Alva v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., 118 N.C. App. 76, 80-81, 453 S.E.2d 871, 874 (1995) (a case that erroneously relied on Lockwood an opinion on the admissibility of expert opinion testimony, to find "could" or "might" testimony sufficient to prove causation). Although expert testimony as to the possible cause of a medical condition is admissible if helpful to the jury, Cherry, 84 N.C. App. at 604-05, 353 S.E.2d at 437, it is insufficient to prove
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|