 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Igawa v. Koa House Restaurant8/30/2001
ve generalized medical opinions and did not address whether the claimant's physical therapy session aggravated his back condition). We hold that Employer adduced relevant and credible evidence of a quality and quantity sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that Claimant's permanent partial disability was not work-related.
However, Dr. Sakoda's report indicated that he diagnosed Claimant as suffering from an arteriovenous (AV) malformation that pre-existed the work injury and stated that the cyst was associated with the malformation.
According to Dr. Sakoda, the results certainly indicate that the AV malformation was somehow aggravated by the trauma and there most likely . . . was some bleeding into the cyst at that time. This did cause some problems mentally and symptomatically. Postoperatively, he is much improved and this certainly supports the diagnosis of Dr. Hosobuchi.
Dr. Sakoda also opined that Claimant suffered a "hyperextension injury to his neck when struck by the large pot" and noted that another doctor had diagnosed a cervical spine strain.
Dr. Sakoda opined that Claimant had suffered an eleven percent impairment of the whole person as a result of his head injury and a twelve percent impairment of the whole person as a result of the neck injury. Dr. Sakoda did not apportion Claimant's impairment between the work injury and the 1975 injury.
Shepard Ginandes, M.D., a psychiatrist, opined that Claimant had suffered a thirty-five percent psychiatric impairment of the whole person, five percent of which was attributable to the 1975 injury and thirty percent of which was attributable to the work injury. Dr. Ginandes did not observe evidence of malingering or conscious exaggeration of symptoms. The ICA also cited the June 28, 1992 report of James Pierce, M.D., a neurologist, who opined that Claimant's headaches were not related to his 1975 injury. Although he noted that Claimant's records showed that he suffered headaches before the work injury, they "took a rather dramatic change since his accident of October. . . . he accident combined with the associated stressors are responsible for the majority of his headache problems now."
Drs. Sakoda, Ginandes, and Pierce reported that they had each examined Claimant and reviewed his medical records.
Drs. Sakoda and Ginandes specifically addressed the question whether Claimant suffered permanent impairment as a result of the work injury and did not merely present general medical opinions. However, as noted supra, Dr. Sakoda did not address whether any of his impairment ratings were attributable to the 1975 injury.
Once the trier of fact determines that the employer has adduced substantial evidence to overcome the presumption, it must weigh the evidence elicited by the employer against the evidence elicited by the claimant. Acoustic, 51 Haw. at 317, 459 P.2d at 544. In the present case, the Board did not expressly address whether Employer had successfully adduced substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of compensability. However, the Board found, based on the opinions of Drs. Nicholson and Bergmanis, that Claimant did not sustain any permanent physical impairment as a result of the October 3, 1991 work accident and expressly rejected Dr. Sakoda's opinion on this issue. The Board also found, based on the opinion of Dr. Bussey, that Claimant did not sustain any permanent psychological impairment as result of the accident and expressly rejected the opinion of Dr. Ginandes. The Board clearly found Employer's medical evidence to be substantial and more credible than Claimant's medical evidence.
It is well established that
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|