 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hajny v. Ag Processing2/15/2005
on v. Werner Enters., 12 Neb. App. 642, 682 N.W.2d 723 (2004). Upon appellate review, the findings of fact made by the trial judge of the compensation court have the effect of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong. Id. In determining whether to affirm, modify, reverse, or set aside a judgment of the Workers' Compensation Court review panel, a higher appellate court reviews the findings of the trial judge who conducted the original hearing. Martinez-Najarro v. IBP, inc., 12 Neb. App. 504, 678 N.W.2d 114 (2004).
2. Causation
Hajny first challenges the trial judge's findings concerning causation. In so doing, Hajny relies heavily on the trial judge's findings that Hajny failed to seek significant and timely medical treatment after the June 1999 and November 2000 accidents and that accordingly, Hajny failed to prove that his current neck injuries were caused by those accidents. There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial judge's factual determination that Hajny failed to prove causation, and the trial judge's finding in this regard is not clearly wrong.
A workers' compensation claimant has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her employment proximately caused the injury which resulted in a compensable disability. Green v. Drivers Mgmt., Inc., 263 Neb. 197, 639 N.W.2d 94 (2002). See, also, Mendoza v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., 8 Neb. App. 778, 603 N.W.2d 156 (1999) (claimant bears burden to establish causal relationship between claimant's alleged injury and his or her employment). The issue of causation of injury or disability is one for determination of the trier of fact. Green v. Drivers Mgmt., Inc., supra. The issue in regard to causation of an injury or disability is one for determination by the Workers' Compensation Court as the fact finder, whose findings will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Mendoza v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., supra. Further, in testing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of fact, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the successful party. Green v. Drivers Mgmt., Inc., supra.
In the present case, the evidence considered in the light most favorable to Ag Processing indicates that although Hajny suffered work-related accidents in June 1999 and November 2000, neither accident required significant medical treatment. Hajny sought no medical treatment after the June 1999 accident and received only minimal chiropractic intervention after the November 2000 accident. There was also evidence presented indicating that Hajny continued working shifts of more than 12 hours in length after each accident and that he was able to perform his job functions without alteration and without displaying any signs of pain or discomfort.
There was evidence presented indicating that Hajny eventually left his employment with Ag Processing for personal reasons entirely unrelated to the work-related accidents. After being denied unemployment benefits, Hajny brought the present action. In addition, there was medical evidence presented indicating that Hajny's symptoms after March 2001 were consistent with a ruptured disk and that it was physically impossible for him to have suffered such an injury in either June 1999 or November 2000 and continue his employment without interruption.
Hajny presented evidence that he was in constant pain after June 1999, that the pain did affect his job performance, that it was a factor in his determination to leave employment with Ag Processing, and that his symptoms were consistent from June 1999 onward; however, Ag Processing presented the above-described evidence which contradicted Hajny's eviden
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.
|
|