Yates v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 01 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 7116,7116 |
| Citation | 1963 NMSC 38,71 N.M. 451,379 P.2d 441 |
| Parties | J. O. YATES, Claimant, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert L. MATTHEWS, Employer, and Zurick Insurance Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Harris & Cathey, Roswell, for appellant.
Frazier & Cusack, Roswell, for appellees.
Appellant's brief presents the single question of whether or not the trial court's finding of fact to the effect that appellant's disability was not caused by accidental injury in the course of employment is supported by substantial evidence.
Appellant claims disability resulting from myocardial infarction suffered while on the job as an employee of appellee. Two doctors of osteopathy who saw appellant soon after the accident, and a doctor of medicine who subsequently treated him, testified that although appellant was suffering from arteriosclerosis, in their opinion the myocardial infarction was in the nature of an accident arising out of the employment, and that, in their opinion, there was a causal connection as a medical probability between the work being performed and the infarction or accident. On the other hand, a doctor of medicine produced by appellee testified to the contrary and expressed the opinion that there was no causal connection.
The court found that appellant's disability did not result from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and specifically, that the work being done by appellant at the time of the attack 'did not cause, contribute to, hasten, aggravate or precipitate the myocardial infarction' from which he is suffering, and accordingly denied recovery.
As we see the problem presented by this appeal, it is simply, does the appellee's evidence, in the nature of an expert's opinion that there is no causal connection, as a medical probability, between the myocardial infarction suffered by appellant while at work on the job, and the duties being performed, meet the tests of substantial evidence so as to require affirmance in the court under our long established rules of review. See Budagher v. Loe, 70 N.M. 32, 369 P.2d 485; Peugh v. Clegg, 68 N.M. 355, 362 P.2d 510; Parks v. McIntosh, 68 N.M. 324, 361 P.2d 949; Brown v. Martinez, 68 N.M. 271, 361 P.2d 152.
The only differences between this case and those cited, supra, lie in the fact that this is a workmen's compensation case and those are not, and here the discrepancies in the evidence are between opinions expressed by experts, whereas those were not.
It is clear that in workmen's compensation cases, as in other appeals, where substantial evidence is present to support a finding, we will not disturb the same on appeal. See Ruiz v. Hedges, 69 N.M. 75, 364 P.2d 136; New Mexico State Highway Department v. Bible, 38 N.M. 372, 34 P.2d 295.
Although possibly not equally clear, we are satisfied that the same rule applies where the conflict in the evidence is between opinions of experts. We so held, in effect, in Christensen v. Dysart, 42 N.M. 107, 76 P.2d 1. Our holding in Los Alamos Medical Center v. Coe, 58 N.M. 686, 275 P.2d 175, 50 A.L.R.2d 1033, although not a workmen's compensation case is to the same effect. See, also, Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, Sec. 80.20.
While there was some question present prior to the enactment of Sec. 7, Ch. 67, N.M.S.L.1959 (Sec. 59-10-13.3, N.M.S.A.1953) as to the need of medical testimony tying a given disability to an accident as a medical probability (See Teal v. Potash Company of America, 60 N.M. 409, 292 P.2d 99; White v. Valley Land Company, 64 N.M. 9, 322 P.2d 707), we are convinced that by this enactment the legislature intended to remove any uncertainty. The enactment in question which did not appear in the law previously, reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trujillo v. Beaty Elec. Co., Inc.
...the courtroom, a chronic illness has overrun the decisions in New Mexico. For opinions in favor of the employee, see, Yates v. Matthews, 71 N.M. 451, 379 P.2d 441 (1963); Stuckey v. Furr Food Cafeteria, 72 N.M. 15, 380 P.2d 172 (1963); Frederick v. Younger Van Lines, 74 N.M. 320, 393 P.2d 4......
-
Molinar v. Larry Reetz Constr., Ltd.
...trier of the facts must resolve the disagreement and determine what the true facts are." Yates v. Matthews , 1963-NMSC-038, ¶ 11, 71 N.M. 451, 379 P.2d 441. However, there must be a rational basis for the WCJ to reject a proposed finding of causation. Cf. Chevron Res. v. N.M. Superintendent......
-
Herman v. Miners' Hosp.
...evidence supports the findings of the hearing officer, an appellate court will not disturb those findings on appeal. Yates v. Matthews, 71 N.M. 451, 379 P.2d 441 (1963). Section 52-1-28(B) requires that where an employer denies a disability is a result of an accident, the claimant "must est......
-
Ross v. Sayers Well Servicing Co.
...effectively overruling Teal v. Potash Company of America, supra, insofar as it held otherwise. This was recognized in Yates v. Matthews, 71 N.M. 451, 379 P.2d 441, where there was a conflict between the opinion expressed by the experts. In the instant case, where causal connection has been ......