Title: Micucci v. Industrial Commission

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

108 Ariz. 194 (1972) 494 P.2d 1324 Nunzio V. MICUCCI, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Knoell Brothers Construction Company, Inc., Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier. No. 10780-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. March 23, 1972. Rehearing Denied May 2, 1972. Spencer K. Johnston, Phoenix, for petitioner. William C. Wahl, Jr., Chief Counsel, The Industrial Comm. of Ariz., Phoenix, for respondent. Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel, State Compensation Fund by Cecil A. Edwards, Jr., Phoenix, for respondent carrier. LOCKWOOD, Justice. This matter is before us on a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the award of the Industrial Commission which denied permanent disability to petitioner Nunzio V. Micucci. Opinion of the Court of Appeals, 16 Ariz. App. 143, 492 P.2d 23 (1972), vacated. On April 10, 1967 petitioner, a carpenter, was injured when he fell eight feet to the *195 ground. His claim was accepted for medical benefits and temporary disability. He continued to receive compensation until the final report of a consultation group of doctors was made on November 5, 1969. That report states in pertinent part: During this period of two and one half years, between the time of the injury of April 10, 1967, and the final report of the consultation group of November 5, 1969, petitioner had been examined by various doctors. Dr. Buford Gregory, an osteopath, saw petitioner immediately after the accident and then again in April of 1970. He was of the opinion that petitioner had a "pre-existing degenerative disk disease complicated by the gouty condition and by the fall." Dr. DeWitt W. England testified, after having examined petitioner, that he believed that petitioner did not have osteoarthritis. Dr. England last examined petitioner in May of 1968. Dr. Daniel J. Potter, an internist, examined petitioner from July of 1968 to October of 1969. It was his impression, taken from another doctor's description of the x-rays, that petitioner had osteoarthritis. He did not know, however, if the disease was causally related to the injury. Dr. Thomas Henry Taber, an orthopedic specialist, examined petitioner forty to forty-five times from the time of the injury until the group consultation report which he participated in. He testified that initially he "thought that [petitioner's] symptoms were related to a lumbo-sacral sprain and strain to both knees and both feet as a result of the injury." He testified however, that he had reached the conclusion that petitioner's present symptoms were not the product of the injury but were due to osteoarthritis. He was also of the opinion that the injury did not aggravate this disease. It is essential to reiterate the governing principles for appellate review of Industrial Commission awards. This Court will consider the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the award and the Commission's findings must be sustained if reasonably supported by the evidence. Valdon v. Industrial Comm., 103 Ariz. 547, 447 P.2d 239 (1968); In Estate of Bedwell, 104 Ariz. 443, 454 P.2d 985 (1969). Furthermore, the Commission's findings will not be disturbed when the evidence is in conflict. Malinski v. Industrial Comm., 103 Ariz. 213, 439 P.2d 485 (1968). Finally, this court will not negate a fact finding of the Commission unless the evidence is such that there is but one possible inference to be drawn. Gronowski v. Industrial Comm., 81 Ariz. 363, 306 P.2d 285 (1957). The sole question in this case is whether there was a reasonable basis in the evidence from which the Commission could have reached its conclusion. The record shows a conflict in the medical evidence. The testimony of Dr. Taber in *196 combination with the report of the consultation group, supported the findings of the Commission in making its decision. We are of the opinion that Dr. Taber's final conclusion and that of the consultation group, that petitioner's symptoms were not related to the injury, was not fraught with uncertainty. Dr. Taber was propounded numerous times with the question of whether he was of the opinion that petitioner's present symptoms were caused by the injury of April 10, 1967. He persistently answered that in his opinion petitioner's symptoms were caused by osteoarthritis. With exacting detail he outlined his diagnosis of the cause of petitioner's condition over the two and one-half year period of time that he attended him. Dr. Taber stated that petitioner was referred to Dr. Potter because Dr. Taber was not getting satisfaction out of the reports from Dr. England. Dr. Potter "concurred that there might possibly be some early degenerative joint disease of a generalized nature. His treatment was directed primarily along medical supportive lines and not specifically related to the industrial injury." Dr. Taber continued: Dr. Taber concluded: When asked upon what specifically he based his recent conclusion, he answered: Dr. Taber also explained how the disease is detected: When asked whether osteoarthritis could be "triggered" by trauma Dr. Taber answered: Dr. Taber did not use precisely the language "reasonable medical certainty" in making his conclusion that petitioner's symptoms were not related to the injury. But to require that doctors specifically use this language would be hypertechnical. We believe that it is important only that it be gleaned from a reading from the entire testimony that the doctor based his opinion upon reasonable medical certainty. Concomitantly, some uncertainty is characteristic of all medical testimony: We conclude that Dr. Taber's testimony, taken together with the report of the consultation group, provides reasonable medical certainty that petitioner's symptoms and condition are no longer causally related to the industrial accident of April 10, 1967. The decision of the Court of Appeals, 16 Ariz. App. 143, 492 P.2d 23 (1972), is vacated and the award of the Industrial Commission is affirmed. HAYS, C.J., CAMERON, V.C.J., and STRUCKMEYER and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.