Opinion ID: 1584575
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: A Causal Connection Between the Injury and Disability

Text: The causal connection element is closely related to the arising out of and in the course of employment element. With reference to causation, we have said: `An injury arises out of the employment when there is a causal connection between it and the job.' Jenkins v. Ogletree Farm Supply, 291 So.2d 560, 563 (Miss. 1974) (quoting Earnest v. Interstate Life & Accident Insurance Co., 238 Miss. 648, 119 So.2d 782, 783 (1960)). Irritants in the work environment which aggravated Betty's asthma need not have been the primary causative factor in order to be compensable. It is only necessary that the workplace irritants did, in fact, aggravate Betty's asthma. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Howell, 221 Miss. 824, 74 So.2d 863 (1954). In the case sub judice, the fact that Betty's workplace environment exacerbated her respiratory problems and contributed to her resulting disability was affirmatively established by the medical testimony of Dr. Moore. Therefore, Betty made out her prima facie case, establishing that an injury arising out of and in the course of employment occurred, and that a causal connection existed between the injury and her claimed disability. Hardin's Bakeries v. Dependent of Harrell, 566 So.2d 1261 (Miss. 1990). As mentioned supra, at that point the burden of proof shifted from the employee/claimant to the employer. Pontotoc Wire Products Co. v. Ferguson, 384 So.2d 601 (Miss. 1980); Thompson v. Wells-Lamont Corp., 362 So.2d 638 (Miss. 1978). The employer, Leggett & Platt, did not adduce evidence which rebutted Betty's prima facie case. Their medical expert, Dr. Jones, stated that it was possible that Betty's asthma was aggravated by her work environment at Leggett & Platt. However, he would not commit to a firm position on the issue, therefore, he did not contradict the testimony of Dr. Moore. A claimant's proof on the issue of causal connection must rise above mere speculation or possibility, as where the medical testimony is that it could have been one way just as well as the other. Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation § 273 (2d ed. 1978) (footnote omitted). See also Southern Brick & Tile v. Clark, 247 So.2d 692 (Miss. 1971). Likewise, once the burden of proof shifts to the employer, the same degree of proof is required in order to rebut the claimant's prima facie case. It is not enough to merely state that causation is possible but that there is insufficient evidence available upon which a medical conclusion could be based. That is exactly what Dr. Jones did in the case sub judice, and that simply does not rise to the required level of proof.