 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lindhag v. State10/7/2005
the [injury]; or (2) directly eliminates any reasonable possibility that employment was a factor in causing the disability." . . .
As a third step, once the employer has rebutted the presumption that the injuries are work related, the employee can prevail only if he proves his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
"To prove a claim by a preponderance of the evidence, the employee must induce a belief in the trier of fact that the asserted facts are probably true." As discussed above, the board applied this test and concluded that, under the third step, Lindhag failed to prove her claim by a preponderance of the evidence. It relied on SIME Dr. Scott's expert opinion and concluded that Lindhag's work was not a substantial cause of her nonencephalopathic conditions; rather, the conditions were deemed a product of "non-work-related factors" and were only temporarily aggravated during her employment.
A. The Board's Findings Were Supported by Substantial Evidence
Lindhag contends that we should reverse the board's findings for two reasons. First, Lindhag claims that the board's written findings were insufficiently detailed to support its conclusions. Second, she argues that substantial evidence did not support the board's finding that her "non-encephalopathy related problems were caused by non-work related factors, including dustmites" because the board failed to review the "whole record." Specifically, Lindhag complains that the board failed to adequately consider three facts: (1) post-employment asthma diagnosis; (2) eosinophil and antibody testing; and (3) post-hearing dust mite evidence.
1. The board's written findings are sufficiently detailed to support its conclusions.
Lindhag claims that the board's written findings do not provide adequate detail to support its conclusions. We disagree.
An administrative agency must make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding all issues that are both "material" and "contested." If these findings or conclusions are insufficient to permit intelligent appellate review, we will remand the case to the agency for further deliberation. Findings are adequate to permit appellate review when "at a minimum, they show that the Board considered each issue of significance, demonstrate the basis for the Board's decision, and are sufficiently detailed."
Lindhag's argument that the board made insufficient factual findings is unconvincing. The board's order first recites the factual history of the case at length, including some of the facts that Lindhag alleges were not adequately considered - e.g., that an asthma diagnosis "had not specifically been made before" the employment, and that Dr. Stewart's blood testing "revealed few eosinophils present." Next, the board in its conclusions of law applied the three-part presumption analysis, as described above, in reaching its conclusion that Lindhag did not prove her claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
In deciding whether Lindhag met her burden of proof, "the disputed issues hinged solely on the opinions of medical experts who evaluated Ms. Lindhag and her medical history." Thus, the board was required to weigh the testimony of Dr. Scott against the testimony of Drs. Steiner and Heuser. The board explicitly accepted Dr. Scott's testimony over Lindhag's witnesses, finding that Dr. Scott had a "clearer and more complete picture" of Lindhag's medical history, and that Dr. Steiner lacked training in "environmental medicine and occupational illnesses" and Dr. Heuser's report contained factual inaccuracies.
This explanation is sufficient to support the board's decision to favor one witness's testimony over
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alaska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|