 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pauls Valley Travel Center v. Boucher5/3/2005
__ P.3d __
ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIV. I.
The broader question presented for our review is whether the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) failed to apply the proper standard of review when it vacated the three-judge panel's award for medical treatment and compensation . The narrow issue before us is whether the trial tribunal's order - that claimant's injury was not idiopathic but compensable because it arose out of her employment - is supported by competent evidence.
I. ANATOMY OF THE LITIGATION
The facts are uncontested. Stephany Maurine Boucher (claimant or Boucher), a cashier employed by the Pauls Valley Travel Center (collectively with Compsource, the insurer, to be known as employer), pressed below two separate work-related injuries to her right knee. The first incident occurred in December of 2002 when she slipped on some grease while walking to the back of the store to place a recently-received gift with other personal belongings. Claimant did not fall but experienced some pain and swelling in her right knee. She did not seek medical attention, nor did she miss any time from work as a result of this injury. On 1 May 2003, Boucher was walking toward the cash register to serve customers when her right knee "gave way." She testified she was then walking a straight path, was not carrying anything, and encountered no obstacles. She did not slip, nor did she exert any undue physical effort. Although Boucher did not fall, because of ensuing severe pain in her right knee she secured emergency medical care. She sought compensation for temporary total disability and medical treatment. Employer denies claimant's injury was job -related.
Boucher - the sole witness at the hearing - testified she had a non-work related injury to the same knee in 1999 (a possible internal derangement). Her cross-examination testimony is confusing as to whether she periodically encountered problems with that knee after the 1999 injury. Two medical reports were offered in evidence. Dr. H's report (offered by employer and claimant) included Boucher's history of her knee injury in 2002 as well as that of the May 2003 re-injury. He gives as his diagnosis a likely bucket handle tear of the medial meniscus with a locked knee. He believes she needed further medical treatment and evaluates her work status as temporarily totally disabled. The medical report of Dr. E (offered solely by claimant) referenced all three knee injuries and included Boucher's complaint that her right leg gave way causing the right knee to twist. The report includes a diagnosis of her injury as a strain of the right knee, a probable internal derangement. Dr. E concludes the injury was causally connected to Boucher's accident. Although employer interposed a probative-value objection to this report (on the grounds that it was insufficient to show the claimant's second injury arose out of her employment), the report was admitted in evidence.
The trial judge found 1) the first incident not to be compensable because the worker was on a personal mission but 2) the second injury, which was not occasioned by idiopathic harm, is compensable. Employer sought intra-court review. A three-judge panel of the WCC sustained the trial judge's order. Employer then sought further review in the appellate courts.
Employer challenged, as unsupported by competent proof, the trial tribunal's finding that Boucher's injury was not the result of an idiopathic condition and that it arose out of her employment. Employer asserts there was no evidence to show that claimant's injury was anything else than an idiopathic episode. Because the facts were deemed uncontested COCA reviewed the di
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|