 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Poellot v. Sioux City Stationery Co.1/18/2005
oellot's employment and his injury and disability. However, we need not decide this issue, because Poellot's argument ignores the trial judge's further analysis rejecting Biga's determination of the existence of calcific tendonitis and accepting Ichtertz' contrary opinions. It is the role of the 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). Where the record presents nothing more than conflicting medical testimony, an appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the compensation court. Swanson v. Park Place Automotive, 267 Neb. 133, 672 N.W.2d 405 (2003). Findings of fact may be reversed by this court only if they are clearly erroneous. See Ludwick, supra.
Even if Poellot is correct in his assertion that Biga's opinions are legally sufficient to support a determination that the injury to Poellot's knees arose out of and in the course of Poellot's employment, the trial judge chose to reject Biga's opinions and accept those of Ichtertz. Ichtertz did not believe that Poellot's degenerative joint disease of the left knee was causally connected to Poellot's employment or that Poellot experienced an injury to his knees; nor did Ichtertz find any evidence of calcific tendonitis on the x ray or via physical examination. The trial judge stated that he was not convinced Poellot had calcific tendonitis, that Ichtertz had found no evidence of calcific tendonitis, that an MRI had shown Poellot's right knee to be normal except for mild prepatellar bursitis, and that "Biga is the only physician who interprets the left knee x-ray as showing calcific tendonitis," further commenting, "I am not persuaded by [Biga]." The trial judge chose to accept Ichtertz' medical testimony over that of Biga, and the record contains evidence to support the trial judge's findings. Accordingly, even if the trial judge was in error in determining Biga's opinions to be legally insufficient, the result would not change unless Poellot also could demonstrate in this appeal that the trial judge was clearly wrong in accepting Ichtertz' opinions and rejecting Biga's conclusions. Poellot did not attempt to do so.
CONCLUSION
We therefore affirm the decision of the review panel.
Affirmed.
|