 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hess v. Ford Motor Company8/18/2000
tivity. Douglas v. Ohio Bur. of Worker's Comp. (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 454, 461.
In the present case, appellee submitted the deposition testimony of Dr. Duane B. Gainsburg, her treating neurosurgeon, to establish the requisite causal connection. Appellant, however, asserts that Dr. Gainsburg never testified that appellee's herniated disc was the result of her work activities. Appellant cites the following testimony of Dr. Gainsburg in support:
"Q. Okay. Doctor, based upon your professional training and experience and your contact with Ms. Hess, do you have an opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, whether there exists a causal relationship between the diagnosis of herniated disc and C6 and 7 and Ms. Hess' work activity of June 13, 1996?
"Q. First, Doctor, do you have an opinion?
"A. Yes.
"Q. What is your opinion?
"A. That there is a clear relationship between her symptoms and the finding of the herniated disc and the treatment of the herniated disc."
Appellant asserts that through this testimony, Dr. Gainsburg only established that appellee's symptoms on June 13, 1996 were consistent with the ultimate diagnosis of a herniated disc and that Dr. Gainsburg did not establish a causal connection. However, " determination whether the testimony of a medical expert is sufficient to survive a motion for directed verdict on the issue of proximate cause must be determined in light of all of the expert's testimony." Douglas, supra at 461.
In addition to the above, Dr. Gainsburg testified that disc herniations are caused by trauma. "Trauma from jamming of the head, trauma from whiplash, trauma from repetitive movement of the neck, trauma from a sudden jerking episode, combinations of trauma." He further stated:
"Now, absent other vigorous neck activity, such as a car accident or a sports injury, you know, kind of one says, well, that didn't happen, this didn't happen, this happened, but she was doing vigorous work with her neck and shoulder and pain started that day; to me that says that the work activity is related to the pain."
Finally, on redirect examination, Dr. Gainsburg testified:
"Q. Is there anything that Mr. Solt had questioned you about that causes you to question or change your opinion that you had previously indicated and that there was a connection or causal relationship between her work activity of June 13, 1996 and the diagnosis of herniated disc?
"A. No."
Construing Dr. Gainsburg's testimony in a light most favorable to appellee, as we must, we conclude that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions on the issue of whether appellee's injury was proximately caused by her work activity and, therefore, find that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for a directed verdict. The first assignment of error is not well-taken.
In her second assignment of error, appellant asserts that the judgment awarding appellee the right to participate in the Workers' Compensation Fund was against the manifest weight of the evidence. It is well-established that:
"Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence." C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, syllabus.
Appellant asserts that because Dr. Gainsburg's testimony did not establish a causal connection between appellee's work activities and her injury, the court's judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. However, as we have
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|