 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hajny v. Ag Processing2/15/2005
ce. To the extent there is a conflict in the evidence, it is not the function of this court to second-guess the trial judge's factual determinations. The record clearly contains evidence 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. This assignment of error is without merit.
3. Intervening Cause
Hajny also asserts that the trial judge erred in failing to require Ag Processing to prove an intervening cause of his injury. However, as noted, it was Hajny's burden to first prove that his work-related accidents proximately caused a compensable injury. See, Green v. Drivers Mgmt., Inc., 263 Neb. 197, 639 N.W.2d 94 (2002); Mendoza v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., 8 Neb. App. 778, 603 N.W.2d 156 (1999). The trial judge found, as an initial matter, that Hajny failed to meet this burden. This assignment of error is without merit.
4. Dr. Gelber's Opinion
Hajny also asserts that the trial judge erred in finding that Dr. Gelber's opinion on causation was insufficient. Hajny essentially argues on appeal that the trial judge should have accepted Dr. Gelber's opinion over Dr. Gammel's opinion. We find no merit to this assertion.
The Nebraska Supreme Court recently iterated that it is the role of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court as the trier of fact to determine which, if any, expert witnesses to believe. Ludwick v. TriWest Healthcare Alliance, 267 Neb. 887, 678 N.W.2d 517 (2004). A trial judge's findings of facts in this regard will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. See id.
In the present case, the trial judge was presented with conflicting expert testimony. Dr. Gelber opined that based on the history provided him by Hajny, the neck injuries were related to the work-related accidents in June 1999 and November 2000. Dr. Gammel opined that based upon a thorough review of the medical records and an examination of Hajny, those injuries could not have been physically related to the work-related accidents in June 1999 and November 2000. Dr. Gammel opined that any injuries from those work-related accidents resolved with little or no medical intervention and that Hajny could not have suffered injuries such as the current ones without an interruption of employment or more significant medical treatment at that time. The trial judge chose to accept Dr. Gammel's opinion, and such decision was not clearly wrong. This assignment of error is without merit.
5. Mileage Reimbursement
Hajny also asserts that the trial judge erred in failing to award him mileage reimbursement. Inasmuch as Hajny's assertions in this regard all presuppose that he would be successful in appealing the trial judge's findings, and inasmuch as we have found above that the compensation court did not err in denying benefits, we need not further discuss this assignment of error.
6. Well-Reasoned Opinion
Finally, Hajny asserts that the trial judge failed to issue a well-reasoned opinion, pursuant to Workers' Comp. Ct. R. of Proc. 11 (2002). We find that the trial judge's award clearly and concisely stated and explained the rationale for the decision and specified the evidence upon which the judge relied. As such, we find no merit to this assignment of error.
Rule 11(A) provides:
All parties are entitled to reasoned decisions which contain findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the whole record which clearly and concisely state and explain the rationale for the decision so that all interested parties can determine why and how a particular result was reached. The judge shall specify the e
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.
|
|