 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robertson v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau9/5/2000
llowed the same course, regardless of his employment.
[ ] On cross-examination, Dr. Berman testified he was not certain whether stress was a risk factor for heart attack, but stress could aggravate risk factors like hypertension. He testified stress is a part of life for everybody, and although Robertson may have been under some stress, it was not a major factor in the development of his coronary disease. Dr Berman also testified stress is not easy to measure and not very well understood, and stress may have had something to do with Robertson's hypertension and elevated cholesterol, but Dr. Berman did not believe stress was an important risk factor. Dr. Berman testified although other experts in the field of cardiology believe stress is a risk factor for the development of coronary heart disease, he did not take that position. Dr. Berman testified Robertson's involvement in a homicide investigation three months before his heart attack was stressful and might even have been "unusual stress as compared to his normal, everyday law enforcement duties."
[ ] The Bureau found the opinions of Dr. Kilzer, Dr. Oatfield, and Dr. Berman compelled a finding that the greater weight of the evidence rebutted the presumption Robertson's heart problems were presumed to be in the line of duty, and the greater weight of the evidence showed Robertson's employment was not a substantial contributing factor to his heart problems.
[ ] Other courts have recognized a split in the medical community about the causal relationship between law enforcement employment and heart disease, and have said the enactment of similar law enforcement presumptions represents a legislatively adopted premise that work stress of a law enforcement officer causes heart disease. See City and County of San Francisco v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 583 P.2d 151, 155-56 (Cal. 1978); Stephens v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., 97 Cal.Rptr. 713, 715 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971); Swanson v. City of St. Paul, 526 N.W.2d 366, 368 (Minn. 1995); Linnell, 305 N.W.2d at 601; Schave v. Department of State Police, 227 N.W.2d 278, 282 (Mich. 1975); Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Servs. v. Newman, 281 S.E.2d 897, 900 (Va. 1981); Sperbeck v. Department of Indus., Labor and Human Relations, 174 N.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Wis. 1970).
[ ] In Swanson, 526 N.W.2d at 368, the Minnesota Supreme Court explained:
Certainly, causation in heart cases is difficult enough to determine by applying medical theory to observable facts, but the difficulty is compounded by the persisting split in medical theory itself on the relation of stress and heart disease. That, however, is not a matter for the courts to consider where the legislature has decided that work common to certain occupations contributes causally to named diseases when the pre-employment physical examination evinces the absence of the disease at that time. Consequently, when there is evidence that a claimant performed the work common to the occupation named in the statute or when the nature of the work done is undisputed, legal causation is established.
As we observed in Egeland[v. City of Minneapolis, 344 N.W.2d 597 (Minn. 1984)], stress in the workplace does not incapacitate the majority of workers in occupations named in the statute and, like Egeland, Swanson was "probably constitutionally predisposed" to his heart disease. Egeland, 344 N.W.2d at 604. But a predisposition to disease does not disqualify a claimant from the coverage provided by the Workers' Compensation Act:
The compensation act was designed for the protection of all laborers coming within its purview. That is, it does not apply to those only who are strong in body. Neither is it limited to those o
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 North Dakota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|