 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McCormack v. Carmen Schell Construction Co.6/25/2002
in this case, the ALJ "found that a sufficient causal connection of appellant's mental condition with the accident was not shown[,and] he Commission adopted his findings." 691 S.W.2d at 412. Thus, on appeal, the evidence was reviewed in a light most favorable to the finding of no causation. The opposite is true in this case. We must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the majority of the Commission's findings of causation; so Schell's reliance upon Tibbs is not helpful.
We have considered Schell's arguments and the evidence properly cited in support. The evidence relied upon by Schell does not tip the scales enough to merit reversal. When asked whether he had an opinion about whether the hospitalization at Charter was reasonable and necessary to treat Mr. McCormack for his work-related injury, Dr. Abrams replied, "I think it was absolutely mandatory, because he was suicidal, paranoid, and extremely disturbed." Likewise, Dr. Wahba testified that he believed, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the Charter hospitalization was reasonably necessary to treat Mr. McCormack's work-related injuries of major depression, seizure disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and cognitive dysfunction. Dr. Hughes' disagreement with Dr. Wahba's findings, as relied upon by Schell, were explicitly found to be "less than credible" by the ALJ. The Commission adopted this finding. Additional evidence showed that Mr. McCormack began suffering from depression not long after the accident. The evidence also supported a finding that the problem escalated because he was not receiving the right treatment, and then, finally, his mental problems escalated to a point requiring hospitalization. Despite Schell's argument to the contrary, Mr. McCormack's complaints of psychological problems for several years without requiring hospitalization do not automatically preclude a finding that the Charter treatment was a result of the electrical shock.
Schell also isolates small portions of Mr. McCormack's testimony in an attempt to show that he, too, acknowledged the treatment was necessitated by the civil trial. However, Mr. McCormack's testimony, which the Commission found credible, contradicts this claim. At one point in the hearing before the ALJ, Schell's counsel specifically asked Mr. McCormack whether he had to go to Charter because of the outcome of his civil case, and Mr. McCormack replied, "No, sir."
Further reference to every piece of evidence presented to relate Mr. McCormack's treatment at Charter to his electrical injury is unnecessary. Schell's arguments go primarily to matters of credibility, on which we defer to the Commission. Davis, 903 S.W.2d at 571. Having measured the evidence by the applicable standard of review, this court holds the Commission's finding that Mr. McCormack's treatment at Charter Hospital was causally related to his work injury, and that, therefore, Schell is responsible for the additional related medical costs, is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record and is not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Id.
Point II is denied.
Point III: Unreasonable Termination of Benefits Under section 287.140.5
In its third point on appeal, Schell alleges that " he majority of the . . . Commission erred in awarding costs because [section] 287.140.5 precludes compensation when claimant unreasonably refused to go to the Mayo Clinic for a thorough and complete evaluation and termination of benefits was not unreasonable."
Section 287.210.1 states in relevant part:
fter an employee has received an injury he shall from time to time thereafter during disability submit t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Missouri Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|