Court Opinion

ID: 9584330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:46:59.292898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:35.657206
License: Public Domain

BAKES, Justice,
concurring specially:
I concur in that portion of the majority opinion which concludes that the commission erred in requiring proof by “expert opinion concerning the degree of disability.” For this reason the case must be reversed and remanded to the commission for further findings without requiring that the non-medical factors of disability be proved by expert testimony. However, I disagree with the balance of the opinion to the extent that it suggests that the commission did not examine “Mr. Bennett’s ‘ability to engage in gainful activity as it is affected ... by non-medical factors, such as age, sex, education, economic and social environment.’ ” There is nothing in the record to indicate other than that the commission considered all of the evidence in arriving at its decision. However, I agree that after having determined the extent of physical impairment, which must be proved by expert medical testimony, the consideration of non-medical factors need not be proved by expert testimony, and for that reason the matter must be remanded to the commission for reconsideration.
SHEPARD, J., concurs.