Summary
In Cole, the Mississippi Supreme Court noted that "[i]n all but the simple and routine cases... it is necessary to establish medical causation by expert testimony."
Summary of this case from Welford v. Andrea Thomley & State Farm Ins. Co.Opinion
No. 40899.
November 3, 1958.
1. Workmen's compensation — back injury — evidence — sustained finding that disability had not extended beyond period for which workman had been paid benefits.
Evidence sustained finding that workman's disability from alleged back injury had not extended beyond period for which he had been paid benefits.
2. Workmen's compensation — Commission trier of facts — review.
Commission is trier of fact in compensation cases, and its findings will be affirmed when there is substantial evidence supporting them.
3. Workmen's compensation — back injury — issues with reference to are properly within province of medical experts.
Issues with reference to alleged back injury are properly within province of medical experts, and in all but simple and routine compensation cases, it is necessary to establish medical causation by expert testimoy.
4. Workmen's compensation — medical evidence — evaluation of conflicting medical evidence — for Commission.
When there is a conflict in medical evidence, its evaluation, with reference to existence, nature and etiology of injury or disease, is a matter for Commission.
Headnotes as approved by Ethridge, J.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Attala County; HENRY L. ROGERS, J.
Crawley Ford, Kosciusko, for appellant.
I. The Circuit Court erred in affirming the order of the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Commission which affirmed the findings of the Attorney-Referee, whereby the claim of Trenton C. Cole, Jr., against Superior Coach Corporation for additional compensation after October 10, 1956, was denied. International Paper Co. v. Handford, 223 Miss. 747, 78 So.2d 895; Reyer v. Pearl River Tung Co., 219 Miss. 211, 68 So.2d 442-44.
II. The Circuit Court erred in affirming the order of the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Commission in finding that there is no substantial evidence upon which to base a finding that the claimant suffered any compensable disability subsequent to October 10, 1956, on account of the accidental injury which arose out of and in the scope of his employment at Superior Coach Corporation. Masonite Corp. v. Fields, 229 Miss. 524, 91 So.2d 282.
III. The Circuit Court erred in affirming the findings of fact of the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Commission inasmuch as the findings of fact are manifestly wrong and contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, in that the testimony of Dr. Joseph M. Moore, an orthopedic surgeon of Vicksburg, Mississippi, is positive and uncontradicted to the effect that the claimant has continued to suffer a disability from his injury at least through March 1, 1957, and stands uncontradicted to the effect that through March 1, 1957, the claimant was suffering a temporary total disability resulting from the injury received in his employment. Masonite Corp. v. Fields, supra; M.T. Reed Constr. Co. v. Martin, 215 Miss. 472, 61 So.2d 300, 63 So.2d 528; Reyer v. Pearl River Tung Co., supra; International Paper Co. v. Handford, supra.
George J. Thornton, Kosciusko, for appellee.
I. In cases where the finding of the Commission on a disputed question of fact is supported by substantial evidence, we are not authorized to reverse its judgment. Sones v. Southern Lbr. Co., 215 Miss. 148, 60 So.2d 582; Smith v. St. Catherine Gravel Co., 220 Miss. 462, 71 So.2d 221; Thornton v. Magnolia Textiles, Inc. (Miss.), 55 So.2d 172; Harper Foundry Machine Co. v. Harper, 232 Miss. 873, 100 So.2d 779; Dillon v. Gasoline Plant Constr. Corp., 222 Miss. 10, 75 So.2d 80; Estate of Tommy Oatis v. Williamson Williamson Lbr. Co., 230 Miss. 270, 92 So.2d 557.
(Hn 1) Appellant, Trenton C. Cole, Jr., applied for workmen's compensation benefits resulting from an alleged back injury received by him on August 29, 1956, while employed by appellee Superior Coach Corporation. He returned to work on September 4, following the accident, having received compensation benefits for the interim period, and continued to work until October 1. He was also paid benefits from October 2-10, 1956. He contends that he is entitled to medical and temporary total disability benefits from October 10, 1956, until at least March 1, 1957; and that his claim should then be remanded to determine whether his disability has continued since the latter date. The attorney-referee, the Workmen's Compensation Commission, and the circuit court held that the evidence did not warrant an award subsequent to October 10, 1956. We think that finding and decision is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.
As was stated by the attorney-referee, the medical and lay testimony was "totally irreconcilable." That of claimant and his witnesses is directly contradicted by that of witnesses for the employer. The same situation exists with reference to the medical testimony. The testimony of claimant's orthopedic doctor is entirely different from that of the two medical specialists and a general practitioner for appellee. The former said that appellant has a chronic lumbosacral sprain in the lower back and traumatic myofibrositis. The three doctors who testified for appellee contradict this diagnosis. They are unable to find any objective symptom of a back injury. In addition, some of appellee's lay testimony as to appellant's activities subsequent to his alleged injury supports the conclusions of the doctors who testified on behalf of appellee.
(Hn 2) The Commission is the trier of fact. It will be affirmed when there is substantial evidence supporting its decision. The medical testimony cannot be reconciled. The Commission had the right to evaluate it, and to accept that of appellee. The medical question is not an uncomplicated one. (Hn 3) The issues with reference to an alleged injury of this type are properly within the province of medical experts. In all but the simple and routine cases (and this is not in that category), it is necessary to establish medical causation by expert testimony. (Hn 4) Where there is a conflict in such evidence, its evaluation and credibility, with reference to the existence, nature and etiology of an injury or disease, are issues for the Commission acting upon such medical testimony. 2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation (1952), Secs. 79.50-79.54.
Appellant urges that this case is controlled by Masonite Corporation v. Fields, 91 So.2d 282 (Miss. 1956). There the testimony of claimant's doctor, on an application for additional temporary total disability benefits, was uncontradicted by the medical testimony for the employer, which was confined to a period prior to that covered by claimant's doctor. The employer "made no effort to have its physicians re-examine appellee to determine whether they agreed" with appellee's medical testimony. That did not occur here. Superior obtained an orthopedic examination of appellant on March 1 and April 23, 1957. On his own motion, the attorney-referee had appellant re-examined by another doctor on May 28, 1957. Appellant's doctor treated him through April 24, 1957, and his testimony cannot be reconciled with that of the other three doctors introduced by appellee. The Commission accepted appellee's medical evidence, and there was a substantial basis for doing so.
Affirmed. McGehee, C.J., and Kyle, Arrington and Gillespie, JJ., concur.