Opinion ID: 2551696
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Municipality Presented Substantial Evidence Sufficient to Rebut the Presumption.

Text: Because the Municipality does not dispute that Steffey triggered the presumption of compensability through Steffey's own testimony and the testimony of Dr. Martin, we begin our analysis by examining whether the Municipality produced substantial evidence that Steffey did not suffer a work-related aggravation of his injury. In order to overcome the presumption of compensability an employer must present substantial evidence that either (1) provides an alternative explanation which, if accepted, would exclude work related factors as a substantial cause of the [aggravation or acceleration]; or (2) directly eliminates any reasonable possibility that employment was a factor in causing the [aggravation or acceleration]. [21] Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. [22] And we look simply for the presence of substantial evidence without reweighing it. [23] We conclude that the Municipality presented substantial evidence that work was not a substantial factor in aggravating Steffey's disability. The Board accorded great weight to Dr[ ]. Laycoe and Dr. Fechtel's opinion[s]. Both doctors examined Steffey in October 1995, and both testified at Steffey's hearing. Dr. Laycoe stated that, [Dr. Fechtel and I] did not believe that there was a specific work injury in August of 1995. Instead, Dr. Laycoe offered an alternative, non-work-related explanation for Steffey's August 22, 1995 symptoms: Q: [M]y question is, Doctor, of the activities I've described, driving a truck with an air-cushioned suspension seat between Anchorage and Girdwood and back, versus playing golf a couple days later, which of those activities would you anticipate would more likely than not cause those symptoms he was complaining about or aggravate his condition as he was claiming? A: Again, this is answerable, basically, by understanding what puts the most force on the back. So if you're trying to assess a change in physical condition, you'd have to [be] most suspicious of the physical activity that put more force on the back, and in that case the golf would put more force on the back. Dr. Laycoe's alternative explanation for the cause of Steffey's injury was substantiated in part by Steffey's own hearing testimony and his admissions to Dr. Horning. Because the Board had heard evidence that work was not a substantial factor in causing Steffey's symptoms, the Board did not err in concluding that the Municipality had rebutted the presumption of compensability. It has always been possible to rebut the presumption of compensability by presenting a qualified expert who testifies that, in his or her opinion, the claimant's work was probably not a substantial cause of her disability. [24] Steffey argues that our recent decision in Tolbert requires us to conclude that the Board erred in finding that the Municipality overcame the presumption. In Tolbert we concluded that the employer failed to rebut the presumption because the expert testimony did not rule out another expert's diagnosis of an alternative cause of the disability. [25] Steffey argues in this case that the Municipality has not ruled out Dr. Martin's testimony that the truck seat aggravated his injury. But Dr. Laycoe concluded that swinging a golf club was more likely to cause Steffey's symptoms than driving a truck. Because the Municipality's experts provided this alternative explanation for Steffey's symptoms, thus excluding work-related factors as a substantial cause of the aggravation, Tolbert does not require us to reverse the Board's conclusion.