Court of Appeals Decision in Traco v. Dumler
This Court of Appeals case, decided on February 9, 2011, addresses an issue of permanent total disability. Although the commissioner found that claimant had sustained permanent total disability based on an odd lot theory, the district court reversed, finding that the claimant had failed to demonstrate that his injury was work related and also failed to prove he was an odd lot employee. The Court of Appeals reverses, concluding that the district court improperly weighed the evidence in overruling the finding that claimant had not established a work related injury. The court also affirmed the odd lot finding of the commissioner.
The evidence demonstrated that claimant reached for pieces of a door while at work, and caught his right leg on a torn fatigue mat, feeling a stinging sensation in his hip. Claimant did not immediately report the incident, and worked the next day. On the second day after his accident, he saw a PA, but the records do not note a work accident. By three days after the accident, claimant had reported the accident to his employer.
Claimant ultimately had a hip replacement. Dr. Boese, the treating surgeon, found that this was a direct result of the work accident. He reiterated this opinion in a letter to defendants' counsel. An FCE limited claimant to sedentary/light work. A vocational evaluation found that claimant was unemployable, given his restrictions. Based on the evidence, the agency found causation, and also found that claimant was an odd lot employee.
The district court reversed, finding that the fact that there was an absence of a reference to a fall at work in the original medical notes was fatal to claimant's claim. The Court of Appeals noted that claimant had testified that he had a fall at work and this testimony was found credible by the agency. The fact that claimant had waited a few days to report the work injury did not defeat his claim. The court found that since the only doctor who had opined on causation had concluded that claimant's injury was related to his fall at work, the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence. With respect to the extent of disability, the employer argued that because claimant had a preexisting degenerative condition, it should not have liability. The court noted that claimant was able to perform his work before the injury, and had only missed one day of work. The court noted that the full responsibility rule applied since there was no ascertainable portion of the disability attributable to the preexisting condition. Finally, the odd lot finding was upheld, again based on substantial evidence grounds.
The evidence, as presented by the Court of Appeals, appeared fairly overwhelming, and defendants did not appear to have much in the way of supportive evidence. The fact that the district court reversed the decision of the commissioner was surprising in light of the evidence discussed by the Court of Appeals.
The evidence demonstrated that claimant reached for pieces of a door while at work, and caught his right leg on a torn fatigue mat, feeling a stinging sensation in his hip. Claimant did not immediately report the incident, and worked the next day. On the second day after his accident, he saw a PA, but the records do not note a work accident. By three days after the accident, claimant had reported the accident to his employer.
Claimant ultimately had a hip replacement. Dr. Boese, the treating surgeon, found that this was a direct result of the work accident. He reiterated this opinion in a letter to defendants' counsel. An FCE limited claimant to sedentary/light work. A vocational evaluation found that claimant was unemployable, given his restrictions. Based on the evidence, the agency found causation, and also found that claimant was an odd lot employee.
The district court reversed, finding that the fact that there was an absence of a reference to a fall at work in the original medical notes was fatal to claimant's claim. The Court of Appeals noted that claimant had testified that he had a fall at work and this testimony was found credible by the agency. The fact that claimant had waited a few days to report the work injury did not defeat his claim. The court found that since the only doctor who had opined on causation had concluded that claimant's injury was related to his fall at work, the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence. With respect to the extent of disability, the employer argued that because claimant had a preexisting degenerative condition, it should not have liability. The court noted that claimant was able to perform his work before the injury, and had only missed one day of work. The court noted that the full responsibility rule applied since there was no ascertainable portion of the disability attributable to the preexisting condition. Finally, the odd lot finding was upheld, again based on substantial evidence grounds.
The evidence, as presented by the Court of Appeals, appeared fairly overwhelming, and defendants did not appear to have much in the way of supportive evidence. The fact that the district court reversed the decision of the commissioner was surprising in light of the evidence discussed by the Court of Appeals.
Comments
Post a Comment