 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hajny v. Ag Processing2/15/2005
On December 12, 2002, Hajny filed an amended petition. In the amended petition, Hajny alleged all three of the work-related accidents set forth above and sought benefits for medical treatment, disability, and vocational rehabilitation. On December 20, Ag Processing filed an answer. Ag Processing admitted that Hajny had been employed by Ag Processing on the relevant dates, but generally denied that any work-related accidents had happened; it alleged that the statute of limitations had expired with regard to the first alleged work-related accident, and generally denied that Hajny's current injuries were caused by any work-related accidents.
On February 3, 2003, Hajny went to see Dr. D.M. Gammel, a doctor retained by Ag Processing to evaluate Hajny. Dr. Gammel concluded that "if . . . Hajny suffered a work related injury in June 1999 and/or November 2000 his symptoms resolved with very little medical or chiropractic intervention." Dr. Gammel opined that Dr. Gelber's opinion on causation was "based upon a verbal history as provided . . . by . . . Hajny" and was "not reflective of a comprehensive and exhaustive review of the medical records." Dr. Gammel further opined that " t would not have been physically possible for . . . Hajny to continue unrestricted employment from June 1999 until February 2001 with" the cervical injury for which Hajny had been receiving treatment and surgical intervention.
On March 13, 2003, the trial judge held a hearing on Hajny's amended petition and Ag Processing's answer. On August 5, the trial judge entered an award. Therein, in an eight-page opinion, the trial judge recounted the significant medical history, including that set forth above in this opinion. The trial judge concluded that with respect to the June 1999 and November 2000 accidents, the primary issue was whether the work-related accidents were the cause of Hajny's ongoing neck and back problems, specifically the symptoms beginning on March 10, 2001. The trial judge found that Hajny had failed to prove causation and, as such, that Hajny was not entitled to benefits for those alleged accidents. The trial judge found that Hajny had proven that he suffered a work-related accident in his exposure to hexane gas, but the judge found that all medical bills incurred as a result of that accident had already been paid. On March 17, 2004, the review panel affirmed the trial judge's award without issuing a detailed opinion. This appeal followed.
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
On appeal, Hajny has assigned numerous errors challenging the trial judge's findings concerning causation. We combine several of these assignments of error and restate them as follows: First, Hajny asserts that the trial judge erred in finding that he failed to prove causation. Second, Hajny asserts that the trial judge erred in failing to require Ag Processing to prove an intervening cause of Hajny's injuries. Third, Hajny asserts that the trial judge erred in finding that Dr. Gelber's opinion on causation was insufficient. Fourth, Hajny asserts that the trial judge erred in failing to award him mileage reimbursement. Fifth, Hajny asserts that the trial judge erred in not issuing a well-reasoned opinion.
IV. ANALYSIS
1. Standard of Review
An appellate court may modify, reverse, or set aside a Workers' Compensation Court decision only when (1) the compensation court acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the judgment, order, or award was procured by fraud; (3) there is not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the order, judgment, or award; or (4) the findings of fact by the compensation court did not support the order or award. Williams
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nebraska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|