Hammons v. Perini Corp., 77-6333
| Decision Date | 26 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-6333,77-6333 |
| Citation | 43 Or.App. 299,602 P.2d 1094 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Compensation of Earvin HAMMONS, Claimant, Respondent, v. PERINI CORPORATION, Employer, Petitioner. ; CA 14125. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Elizabeth K. Reeve, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. On the brief were L. Edward Robbins, Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., Michael D. Hoffman and Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey, Williamson & Schwabe, Portland.
Paul S. Wiggins, Jr., Forest Grove, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Caldwell & Higgins, Forest Grove.
Before TANZER, P. J., and THORNTON and CAMPBELL, JJ.
This is a claim for compensation for a pneumothorax (collapsed lung) and resulting disease which occurred while the claimant was working as a pipe construction supervisor. He had knocked out a couple of 2 X 4's with a sledge hammer shortly before the collapse. Several years before, he had San Joaquin Valley fever, a lung disease, and had declined recommended surgery. Consequently, a blister grew on the lung. The mechanics of his present injury are that the blister broke, allowing the air to leak from his right lung, thus causing the collapse. The referee found the injury to be noncompensable; the Workers' Compensation Board found it was. The employer appeals. The question is whether the injury is job related.
There are two treating physicians and one consultant. The treating physicians conclude that the injury is job related. The consultant concludes that it is not. The referee believed the consultant and denied benefits. The Board, reversing the referee and awarding benefits, found the treating physicians more credible because they had observed the patient.
On de novo review, we find that the consultant is far more persuasive than the treating physicians. The promise of the Board that the treating physicians are more credible than consultants has no application in this case. There is nothing about the nature of the treatment which would enhance one's diagnostic ability by virtue of having examined and treated the claimant. This case involves expert analysis rather than expert external observation. Hence, we do not give special credit to the treating physicians in this case.
The consultant, Dr. Tuhy, surveyed the records of claimant's prior treatment and his x-rays. He reviewed the literature in the field and explained the mechanics of the injury in detail. Because most such blister blow-outs are unrelated to activity (indeed, they happen most commonly while the person is asleep) he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Compensation of Thurston, Matter of
...therefore we can not rely on the premise than a treating physician is more credible than a consultant. But see Hammons v. Perini Corp., 43 Or.App. 299, 602 P.2d 1094 (1979) (consultant found more persuasive than treating As triers of fact, we conclude that Dr. Rush's hypothesis is more pers......
-
Destael v. Nicolai Co.
...the alleged causal incident. We give no special credit to the testimony of the treating doctors in this case. See Hammons v. Perini Corp., 43 Or.App. 299, 602 P.2d 1094 (1979). Gatterman found no rateable spinal impairment. Howell found minimal lumbar dysfunction and thought that it was "po......
-
Somers v. SAIF Corp.
...give more weight to those medical opinions which are both well-reasoned and based on complete information. See Hammons v. Perini Corp., 43 Or.App. 299, 302, 602 P.2d 1094 (1979); Harris v. Farmer's Co-op Creamery, supra, 53 Or.App. at 625, 632 P.2d 1299. We find that only Hodge's opinion me......
-
Compensation of Harris, Matter of
...during the initial phases of disability, this is not a case in which such deference is appropriate. We said in Hammons v. Perini Corp., 43 Or.App. 299, 602 P.2d 1094 (1979), a case involving disease resulting from a collapsed lung, that where a case involves expert analysis rather than expe......