Anderson v. Mackey
| Decision Date | 16 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 12370,12370 |
| Citation | 93 N.M. 40,1979 NMSC 41,596 P.2d 253 |
| Parties | Cliff ANDERSON and Jill Anderson, d/b/a Nob Hill Restaurant and St. Paul Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Connie MACKEY, Respondent. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Connie Mackey, respondent (plaintiff) was employed as a waitress at petitioners' (defendants') restaurant. Plaintiff fell while at work and allegedly was injured. Plaintiff brought this action for benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act. At the close of plaintiff's case the trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to show that as a medical probability there was a causal connection between plaintiff's injury and her disability. The Court of Appeals reversed, Judge Sutin dissenting, and remanded the case for a new trial. We granted certiorari.
The only question presented is whether there was direct testimony that, as a medical Probability, plaintiff's psychological disability was a natural and direct result of the accident.
Section 52-1-28(B), N.M.S.A.1978 of the Workmen's Compensation Act relating to compensable claims requires that:
In all cases where the defendants deny that an alleged disability is a natural and direct result of the accident, the workman must establish that causal connection as a medical probability by expert medical testimony. No award of compensation shall be based on speculation or on expert testimony that as a medical Possibility the causal connection exists. (Emphasis added.)
The only evidence in the record relating to the causal connection which plaintiff was required to prove was the deposition of Dr. Frank Maldonado:
Q (By Mr. Conway) Doctor, do you have an opinion as to whether or not Mrs. Mackey has suffered any disability as a result of the alleged fall that took place on June 25, 1977 at the Nob Hill Restaurant?
A Yes, I think there is some disability, yes.
Q What would that disability be? Any physical disability is what I am talking about.
A I don't think there is any physical disability, no.
Q So she is in no way physically impaired from continuing her same duties that she was doing prior to the time of this fall?
A In regards to the low back and legs, and that is the only areas I checked, I could find no physical disabilities.
Q Did she complain to you of any other areas?
A No.
Q You then, Doctor, would give her no disability whatsoever as to a back injury?
A That's correct.
Q (By Mr. Stagner) And what is that disability, Doctor?
A I think she has a psychological disability.
Q And what is that psychological disability?
A Well, I am not properly not properly trained I am not trained in psychological diagnosis or psychology to put a name on it exactly, but it is some type of hysteria or conversion reaction.
In ruling on defendants' motion, the trial judge said:
But I am unable to find anything there which even expresses an opinion as to any causal connection between the disability which he narrates, and the injury in the case. Of course, he finds there is no physical disabilities, so he doesn't even get into that aspect of the thing. He acknowledges that she does have pain and that she does have a psychological disability, and so far as I can find the record is totally silent as to even a fair inference from his testimony, that he's saying that there is a causal connection. In fact, I think he just expresses no opinion as to the cause of the psychological disability.
Further, the doctor stated that he was not trained in psychological...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herman v. Miners' Hosp.
...evidence that decedent's death and heart attack was a medically probable result of the work-related stress. See Anderson v. Mackey, 93 N.M. 40, 42, 596 P.2d 253, 255 (1979). The Hospital asserts that a possible cause only becomes a probable cause " 'when in the absence of other reasonable c......
-
Fierro v. Stanley's Hardware, s. 7908
...to give "expert medical testimony." No claim is made that Dr. Salazar is a doctor of medicine. Plaintiff cites only to Anderson v. Mackey, 93 N.M. 40, 596 P.2d 253 (1979) and urges us to overrule that case. Quite aside from the fact that this court has no authority to overrule the supreme c......
-
Bufalino v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
...to produce expert medical testimony to show as a medical probability that his disability was caused by the accident. Anderson v. Mackey, 93 N.M. 40, 596 P.2d 253 (1979). On the other hand, an award of compensation should be denied (1) if a court must speculate as to whether a workman's disa......
-
Turner v. New Mexico State Highway Dept.
...and 3. that she had done no research or read any papers relative to her testimony. The defendants appear to rely on Anderson v. Mackey, 93 N.M. 40, 596 P.2d 253 (1979), for their contention that plaintiff's expert should have been a cardiologist and not a pathologist. In Anderson the questi......