Court Opinion

ID: 9737847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:35:31.375682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:01.779362
License: Public Domain

Caporale, J.,
dissenting.
It seems to me the majority overlooks the fundamental principle that a workers’ compensation claimant must in all instances prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the accident arising out of and in the course of employment proximately caused the claimed injury and resultant disability. Heiliger v. Walters & Heiliger Electric, Inc., ante p. 459, 461 N.W.2d 565 (1990). Unless the character of the injury is objective, that is, its nature and effect are plainly apparent, the injury is subjective and the causal relationship between it, the accident, and any resultant injury and disability must be proved by expert opinion. Fees v. Rivett Lumber Co., 228 Neb. 617, 423 N.W.2d 483 (1988). But see Luehring v. Tibbs Constr. Co., 235 Neb. 883, 457 N.W.2d 815 (1990). In order to support an award, medical evidence must be sufficiently definite and certain as to support a conclusion that there was a causal connection between the accident and the disability. Gilbert v. Sioux City Foundry, 228 Neb. 379, 422 N.W.2d 367 (1988). That rule led us to hold that a medical opinion based on reasonable medical certainty that the disability “could” have been caused by the injuries in question lacked the degree of definiteness and certainty required. Caradori v. Frontier Airlines, 213 Neb. 513, 329 N.W.2d 865 (1983).
Thus, even if we assume that Dr. Bainbridge’s questioned note should have been received in evidence and was not, the *519error would be harmless, for I submit saying that “A suggests B” is no more definite and certain than saying that “A could have caused B
Accordingly, I would affirm.
Boslaugh, J., joins in this dissent.