Sargent v. Co-Ad, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 February 1998 |
| Docket Number | CO-A,No. 23166,INC,23166 |
| Citation | 953 P.2d 593,131 Idaho 153 |
| Parties | Maxine R. SARGENT, Claimant-Appellant, v., Employer and State Insurance Fund, Surety, Defendants-Respondents. Boise, November 1997 Term |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Maxine R. Sargent, Clarkston, WA, pro se claimant-appellant.
Mosman Law Offices, Moscow, for defendants-respondents.
This is an appeal from an Industrial Commission (Commission) decision denying medical and disability benefits, which was rendered after a hearing and post-hearing brief. The claimant appeals, requesting total temporary disability benefits for an alleged back injury. We affirm the decision of the Commission.
Appellant Maxine Sargent (Sargent) was employed as a fiscal officer for respondent Co-Ad Inc. (Co-Ad) from the spring of 1983 until March of 1993. On February 10, 1992, Sargent was working in her home for Co-Ad when her printer jammed. As she reached over to fix the problem, she experienced lower back pain, pain in her right leg to the knee, and pain in her left upper leg to the knee. Sargent had no problems with her lower back before this incident. Sargent was terminated from her position with Co-Ad in March of 1993.
As a result of this incident, Sargent received physical therapy two to three times a week from Twin Rivers Physical Therapy. During this therapy, the therapist noted several incidents where Sargent experienced increased back pain from activities such as yard work and moving carpet.
After the accident, Sargent saw numerous doctors for pain in her legs and knees. Further examinations led Sargent's doctors to believe she had problems with the L3 disk in her back which was pressing on the nerve roots. In 1994, Sargent had surgery on her left knee because she was told her back would not get better without knee surgery. Sargent was never compensated for this knee surgery.
On August 27, 1992, Dr. Alex Verhoogen evaluated Sargent, at the request of the State Insurance Fund. Dr. Verhoogen determined that Sargent's injury to her right knee was not causally related to the February 10, 1992 twisting accident.
On August 29, 1994, it was recommended to Sargent that she have surgery at the L3-4 disk. Sargent refused. Then on November 8, 1994, degenerative changes were noted at the L5-S1 disk. A subsequent MRI in 1995 indicated a herniated disk. Sargent underwent surgery on the L5-S1 disk on February 8, 1995.
Following the February 1992 accident, Sargent filed a claim with the Commission. On June 3, 1996, the Commission adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the referee that Sargent had not carried her burden of proving the surgery was causally related to the accident, and that Sargent had experienced a subsequent intervening accident which caused the L5-S1 disk herniation. The referee found that the "[m]edical records indicate there was an acute change in Claimant's complaints from those that she first presented with in early March 1992."
Therefore, the Commission held that Sargent was not entitled to medical or total temporary disability benefits for the herniated disk and the surgery, but that she was entitled to medical benefits from February 10, 1992 through May 20, 1992. It also held that Sargent was not entitled to total temporary disability benefits from February 10, 1992 through May 20, 1992.
Sargent filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on July 16, 1996. Sargent appeals the decision of the Commission.
The issue on appeal is whether there is substantial and competent evidence to support the Commission's decision to deny total temporary disability benefits.
In reviewing decisions by the Commission, this Court exercises free review over questions of law, but will not disturb findings of fact "if they are supported by substantial and competent evidence." Berglund v. Potlatch Corp., 129 Idaho 752, 754, 932 P.2d 875, 877 (1996). "Substantial and competent evidence is relevant evidence that would be accepted by a reasonable mind as adequate to support a conclusion." Id.
Whether an injury arose from the course of employment is a factual determination. Koester v. State Ins. Fund, 124 Idaho 205, 208, 858 P.2d 744, 747 (1993). While the Worker's Compensation Act is to be construed liberally in favor of the claimant, the claimant must prove a "probable, not merely a possible, causal connection between the employment and the injury." Id.
Sargent cites various doctors' reports to support her argument that the February 10, 1992 twisting incident was the sole cause of her back injury. The claimant has the burden of proving the disability was "caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of [ ] employment." Callantine v. Blue Ribbon Linen Supply, 103 Idaho 734, 734-35, 653 P.2d 455, 455-56 (1982). This Court has stated that
[i]n the presence of conflicting evidence in worker's compensation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weitz v. Green, 33696.
... ... Sun Valley Shamrock Resources, Inc. v. Travelers Leasing Corp., 118 Idaho 116, 794 P.2d 1389 (1990); ... Murgoitio v. Murgoitio, ... ...