Opinion ID: 2551870
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: NANA/Marriott also failed to rebut the presumption by offering an alternative explanation for DeYonge's worsened condition.

Text: NANA/Marriott also attempted to produce an alternative explanation for DeYonge's worsened condition. Specifically, NANA/Marriott produced evidence to suggest that DeYonge injured her knees while working-out on the treadmill or doing weight work such as leg presses. NANA/Marriott asserts that these alternative explanations for DeYonge's disability supplied the requisite affirmative evidence [29] that her job did not aggravate her preexisting condition. Thus, NANA/Marriott argues that even if DeYonge had raised the compensability presumption, it successfully rebutted it. We have noted that an employer does not provide a sufficient alternative explanation simply by pointing to other factors that likely aggravated a preexisting condition. [30] Thus, in Williams v. State, Department of Revenue, although the employer presented evidence demonstrating that genetics and emotional factors played a significant role in the employee's illness, the employer did not eliminate all possibilities that the injury was work-connected. [31] Because the employer did not offer evidence that other factors were the exclusive cause of [the employee's] aggravated condition, nor did it produce evidence to eliminate the employee's job as  another causal factor [among others], this court determined that the employee was entitled to workers' compensation. [32] Similarly here, it may be true that DeYonge's working-out on the treadmill or doing weight work contributed to her worsened symptoms. But NANA/Marriott's attempt to attribute DeYonge's aggravation to these activities does not eliminate all possibilities [33] that her condition was work related. That is, this evidence does not exclude DeYonge's work as  another causal factor [34] in the aggravation of her symptoms. And we have noted that an employee is entitled to benefits whenever the work-related aggravation is a substantial factor in the employee's impairment, regardless of whether a non-work-related injury could independently have caused that impairment. [35] Because NANA/Marriott did not offer evidence that other factors were the exclusive cause of her aggravated condition or that DeYonge's work was not another causal factor among others, [36] we disagree with the Board's and the superior court's determinations that NANA/Marriott rebutted the presumption of compensability. Because we reach this conclusion, we need not address whether DeYonge proved her claim by a preponderance of evidence.