Edwards v. State Acc. Ins. Fund
| Decision Date | 05 July 1977 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Compensation of Joy A. EDWARDS, Claimant, Appellant, v. STATE ACCIDENT INSURANCE FUND, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Larry D. Moomaw, Beaverton, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Blyth, Porcelli & Moomaw, Beaverton.
Kevin L. Mannix, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., and W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before THORNTON, P. J., and TANZER and RICHARDSON, JJ.
The issue in this workmen's compensation appeal is whether claimant's present physical problems are the result of a fall which she sustained in 1973. Claimant appeals from an order of the circuit court affirming the decisions of the hearings referee and a majority of the Workmen's Compensation Board (Board), and denying compensation for urethritis and cystourethrocele (urological conditions).
On September 10, 1973, while at work, claimant slipped and fell, striking her left hand on a desk and landing on her right hip. The injury report identified claimant's injuries as a broken bone in the left hand and a bruised right hip with internal hemorrhaging. Subsequent to this original fall and its treatment, claimant experienced pain in the pelvic region and on July 24, 1974, an arthrodesis of the symphysis pubis was performed for which compensation was granted. 1 In October of 1974 claimant had surgery for urological conditions. The State Accident Insurance Fund (SAIF) denied responsibility for the urological conditions and that denial prompted these proceedings.
The burden is on the claimant to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the particular disability was legally and medically caused by a compensable accident. Riutta v. Mayflower Farms, Inc., 19 Or.App. 278, 527 P.2d 424 (1974), Sup.Ct. review denied (1975). Medical causation presents a question of fact and proof of medical causation requires expert medical testimony establishing that, in this case, the slip and fall were material, contributing factors producing the urological conditions.
The medical evidence in this case is inconclusive. None of the doctors queried flatly stated that there was a causal connection between the injury and the urological conditions. Two of the doctors indicated the possibility of a causal connection and one stated, "I find nothing in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnett v. SAIF Corp.
...testimony was necessary to establish that the March 21 incident at work caused her lumbosacral strain. SAIF contends that Edwards v. SAIF, 30 Or.App. 21, 566 P.2d 189, rev. den. (1977), creates a per se rule that expert testimony is always required to establish such In Edwards, the claimant......
-
Allie v. State Acc. Ins. Fund Corp.
...and the condition and "because of the careful elimination of all alternative causes." 69 Or.App. at 590, 682 P.2d 165. In Edwards v. SAIF, 30 Or.App. 21, 566 P.2d 189, rev. den. 279 Or. 301 (1977), involving a complex medical problem, we refused to rely on a "natural inference" based on the......
-
Compensation of Gallea, Matter of, 80-07747
...disability, specifically her right shoulder condition, was legally and medically caused by a compensable accident. Edwards v. SAIF, 30 Or.App. 21, 23, 566 P.2d 189, rev. den. 279 Or. 301 (1977). Proof of medical causation here required expert medical evidence establishing that the thoracic ......
-
Bradshaw v. State Acc. Ins. Fund Corp., 82-00795
...been hesitant to infer causation from chronological sequence. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a classic logical fallacy. See Edwards v. SAIF, 30 Or.App. 21, 566 P.2d 189, rev. den. 279 Or. 301 (1977). Yet, as Sherlock Holmes noted, when one has excluded all other explanations, whatever remains......