 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bilyeu v. Sherwin Williams Company6/21/2002
proof as to causation of his injury. As support for this contention, the appellant contends that Dr. Faith's testimony is not credible.
It is well-settled that in order to be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, an employee must suffer "an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment which causes either disablement or death." Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 50-6-102(a)(5). The phrase "arising out of" refers to causation. The causation requirement is satisfied if the injury has a rational, causal connection to the work. Reeser v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 938 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Tenn. 1997) (citations omitted); Fink v. Caudle, 856 S.W.2d 952 (Tenn. 1993).
In all but the most obvious cases, such as the loss of a member, expert testimony is required to establish causation. Thomas v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 812 S.W.2d 278 (Tenn. 1991). When the medical testimony is presented by deposition, as it was in this case, this Court is able to make its own independent assessment of the medical proof to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies. Cooper v. INA, 884 S.W.2d 446, 451 (Tenn. 1994); Landers v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 775 S.W.2d 355, 356 (Tenn. 1989).
Dr. Faith testified that he fully examined the plaintiff and treated him for a period of time and that it was his opinion, within reasonable medical certainty, that the primary cause of the plaintiff's asthma was his occupation and exposure to chemicals at work. As his treating physician, Dr. Faith has at least as much credibility as Dr. Haynes, if not more. Dr. Haynes' opinion that the plaintiff's exposure to epoxy paints was very slight was based upon misinformation that epoxy paints were not mixed. The plaintiff testified at trial that he mixed epoxy paints regularly. Such exposure to the chemicals in these epoxy paints, as stated by both medical experts in this case, could have caused the plaintiff's asthma.
Although causation cannot be based upon merely speculative or conjectural proof, absolute certainty is not required. Any reasonable doubt in this regard is to be construed in favor of the employee. We have thus consistently held that an award may properly be based upon medical testimony to the effect that a given incident "could be" the cause of the employee's injury, when there is also lay testimony from which it reasonably may be inferred that the incident was in fact the cause of the injury. Reeser v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 938 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Tenn. 1997) (citations omitted). In light of the foregoing, we do not disturb the trial court's finding that the plaintiff's asthma was caused by his exposure to chemicals at his workplace.
The appellant next contends that the plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof regarding impairment from his asthma. In support of this contention, the appellant points out that Dr. Faith only performed one methacholine test on the plaintiff to determine the extent of his asthma problems, as opposed to the three such tests at least one week apart the appellant contends are required by the current AMA Guides.
The appellant's argument is well taken, yet as the plaintiff points out, the appellant cites no authority for disregarding Dr. Faith's testimony. As the plaintiff contends, the AMA Guides do not set forth a mandatory requirement of three methacholine tests for the assessment of impairment. Three tests are merely the suggested guideline for diagnosing respiratory impairment. Further, the "requirement" of three such tests at least one week apart as set forth in the paragraph cited by the appellant from Table 10, page 164 of the Guides, is used to diagnose severe respiratory impairment under the Guides. Dr. Faith's impa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|