Opinion ID: 1207560
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Permanent injury.

Text: The trial court found that plaintiff suffered permanent injury as a result of defendant's negligence. This finding is error, it is not supported by substantial evidence. Herrell v. Piner, 78 N.M. 664, 437 P.2d 125 (1968). Our views are: (a) the fusion, in itself, does not establish a permanent injury, (b) the evidence does not establish that plaintiff's condition at trial was a result of the accident and (c) while the evidence shows that plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of the accident, the evidence does not show that these injuries were permanent. In reaching these views we have considered all the evidence, medical and non-medical. Accordingly, we do not reach the contention as to the type of evidence required to show a permanent injury. a. The fusion, in itself, does not establish a permanent injury. Plaintiff suffered pain at C2-3 and C6-7 as a result of the accident. The doctor testified that surgery was necessary to interrupt that pain. There was also a good fusion at C2-3. This C2-3 fusion was a permanent fixation; a permanent condition. See 1A Gordy-Gray, Attorneys' Textbook of Medicine (3rd ed.) para. 13.08, at 13-22 (1968). This permanent condition, however, does not establish a permanent injury; there must be more. Proof of permanent injury means proof of permanent disability or permanent damage. Garcia v. Southern Pacific Co., 79 N.M. 269, 442 P.2d 581 (1968). Lawyers' Medical Encyclopedia, §§ 7.20 and 7.38 (Rev.Vol. 1, 1966) indicates some permanent impairment results from a fusion. However, 1A Gordy-Gray, Attorneys' Textbook of Medicine (3rd ed.) para. 13.09, at 13-27 (1968) and 1A Gordy-Gray, Attorneys' Textbook of Medicine (3rd ed.) para. 10A.40, at 10A-17 (1961) indicates there may be no residual disability. With this variance, we cannot hold there is either permanent disability or permanent damage solely on the basis that a fusion has been performed. b. The evidence does not establish that plaintiff's condition at trial was a result of the accident. The doctor was not asked whether plaintiff suffered any permanent disability or permanent damage as a result of the injuries at C2-3 and C6-7 or as a result of the surgery at those two levels. The doctor was not asked whether plaintiff's condition at trial resulted from the accident. We have previously referred to the doctor's testimony concerning plaintiff's ability to lift and to engage in practically unlimited activities prior to the accident. At the trial the doctor testified that plaintiff was incapable of performing manual labor, that he should not    do heavy labor, lifting, or movement of his arms above shoulder height. The elapsed time from accident to trial is approximately two years and two months. Because of this elapsed time, plaintiff asserts the trial court could infer that he has a permanent injury as a result of the accident. See Johnson v. City of Santa Fe, 35 N.M. 77, 290 P. 793 (1930); City of Phoenix v. Mullen, 65 Ariz. 83, 174 P.2d 422 (1946); Southern Ry. v. Lambert, 106 Ga. App. 691, 128 S.E.2d 87 (1962); American Marietta Co. v. Griffin, D.C.App., 203 A.2d 710 (1964); Carpenter v. Nelson, 257 Minn. 424, 101 N.W.2d 918 (1960). Such an inference cannot be drawn unless there is evidence that plaintiff's disability, at the time of trial, resulted from the accident. Defendant is only liable for the injuries he inflicted. Martin v. Darwin, supra. Even if plaintiff's disability is permanent, there must be evidence that defendant caused that disability. We review the evidence. After the surgery was performed, plaintiff made an uneventful recovery    up to July 1 [1963].    At that time he was allowed to do light work but was restricted to 25 pounds of lifting.    [H]is symptoms were still subsiding. Headaches had completely disappeared.    Although the grafts could still be discerned, C2-3 and C6-7 were healing well. The doctor did not see plaintiff again until July 30, 1964; thirteen months later. At that time he was doing custom farming which was heavy work.    [E]xcept for riding over rough fields with heavy equipment [plaintiff] was getting along quite well and did experience some headache and neck pain, pain between the shoulders as a result of this jostling and jarring he was experiencing. At this time, the doctor felt that plaintiff    was re-establishing his non-union at C6-7 level, which we attributed to the heavy work he was doing, and which as long as the symptoms remained subsided we felt there was sufficient scar tissue holding this thing solid that he had achieved the initial purpose of the graft, namely producing an asymptomatic condition to the neck. In November 1964, the re-occurring non-union of C6-7 was more evident. The doctor felt again that the non-union resulted from plaintiff's activity as a farm laborer. The doctor's last examination was April 8, 1965. Plaintiff had been driving a tanker over rough ground hauling waste water. In this activity, he experienced pain in the neck and between the shoulders, headaches and difficulty in sleeping. By not doing heavy lifting or experiencing severe jolting, however, plaintiff got along fairly well. The doctor's testimony establishes that subsequent to surgery plaintiff was asymptomatic for a time; that pain returned with activities such as driving farm equipment or tankers. At the trial which began April 30, 1965, (the record does not disclose why the case was thereafter held under advisement in the district court for more than three years) the doctor testified as to plaintiff's inability to do heavy work, lifting or movements of the arms above the shoulders. He also testified that plaintiff's greatest difficulty arose in the cervical spine. In addition, the doctor testified: Q. Let me just ask you this: With reference to the heavy lifting today, is that mainly attributable to the C6-7 condition? A. Yes, sir, that is the main reason he is being limited to that. Q. Which you related to the activities on the farm down there. A. That is true. The doctor's testimony does not establish that plaintiff's condition at trial (a limitation of physical activity) resulted from the accident. The non-medical testimony shows that subsequent to the surgery and up to the custom farming period, plaintiff worked at various jobs; that the heavier the job the greater his difficulty because of pain. At times the pain caused him to blackout. Plaintiff agreed that the custom farming was strenuous work. After this terminated, plaintiff worked in a dental laboratory. There he experienced pain if he sat still any length of time. His worst (and last) blackout occurred while employed at the dental laboratory after lifting heavy objects. Plaintiff's own testimony places him in worse condition at time of trial than did his doctor. According to plaintiff, he suffers severe neck pain, headaches and sleeplessness on    any type of lifting or physical exertion;    Other witnesses tend to corroborate plaintiff's testimony. Even if non-medical testimony may establish the cause of plaintiff's condition at trial (see Woods v. Brumlop, supra), the non-medical testimony in this case does not show that the condition at trial resulted from the accident. Rather, it shows increased pain and inability to work subsequent to the custom farming. It corroborates the medical opinion that the main reason for the limitation on plaintiff's activities at trial was the farm work. Compare Gammon v. Ebasco Corp., 74 N.M. 789, 399 P.2d 279 (1965). c. While the evidence shows that plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of the accident, the evidence does not show that these injuries were permanent. Prior to the farm work, there is evidence that plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the accident. This evidence has been referred to previously in the opinion. The limited medical evidence indicates an asymptomatic condition and that both cervical levels were healing well. The non-medical evidence shows pain on doing heavier type of work. None of this evidence shows disability or damage extending into the future  that is, a permanent injury prior to the farm work. Compare Garcia v. Southern Pacific Co., supra. The trial court erred in finding that plaintiff suffered permanent injury as a result of the accident.