 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Anderson v. General Motors Corp.2/29/2000
Submitted: December 9, 1999
ORDER
This 29th day of February 2000, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief and the appellee's motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1) The employee/claimant-appellant, Roland C. Anderson, claims error in the Superior Court's affirmance of the decision of the Industrial Accident Board (the "Board") dismissing his petition for workers' compensation benefits as untimely. The employer/carrier-appellee, General Motors Corporation, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Anderson's opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and AFFIRM.
(2) On December 15, 1998, following an October 1, 1998 hearing on remand, the Board denied Anderson's Petition to Determine Compensation Due (the "petition"). The petition, which was filed on September 30, 1997, claimed that Anderson sustained a left shoulder injury while working at General Motors in 1982. The Board determined Anderson's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Anderson moved for reargument of the Board's decision based upon additional medical evidence that had not been considered by the Board. The Board denied the motion for reargument. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the decision of the Board, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the Board's findings and there was no legal error. The Superior Court also denied Anderson's subsequent motion for reargument.
(3) In this appeal, Anderson claims the Board improperly relied upon the June 1997 office notes of Eric T. Johnson, M.D., one of his treating physicians, because they were placed into evidence by General Motors in violation of the Board Rules. Anderson also claims the Board erred in refusing to open the record to permit the consideration of additional medical documentation and live testimony from Dr. Johnson. This additional evidence, Anderson alleges, would have proven he was not aware of his left shoulder condition until he experienced pain in June 1997, thus bringing his claim within the statute of limitations.
(4) At the hearing, the Board confirmed that Anderson did not intend to call Dr. Johnson to testify and that all of Anderson's documents, including doctor's reports, records and letters, with the exception of a recent opinion on total disability from Dr. Hershey, would be included in the record for its consideration. Anderson testified that: he went to Wilmington Hospital in June 1997 with a complaint of left shoulder pain; he was referred to Dr. Johnson, an orthopedic specialist, for that complaint; Dr. Johnson diagnosed him with an impingement and arthritis; he told Dr. Johnson he worked on the line at General Motors in 1982 grinding the brass on cars and that this was difficult and repetitive overhead work; Dr. Johnson was currently treating him with physical therapy, anti-inflammatory medication and home exercise; and he worked at General Motors for 6 months, with at least one layoff during that period.
(5) During cross examination by General Motors' counsel, Anderson was asked about apparent inconsistencies in the dates of his employment with General Motors. He was also asked about Dr. Johnson's June 1997 office notes which stated he had "a long-standing history of intermittent left shoulder pain" and "had experienced occasional pain on and off at his job at GM." Anderson testified he did not recall making any such statements. When asked what evidence established a connection between his employment with General Motors and his current left shoulder problem, he pointed to the Board questionnaire filled out by Dr. Johnson
Page 1 2 3 Delaware Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|