Court Opinion

ID: 9679228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:44:52.66869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:11.537000
License: Public Domain

*141J. H. Gillis, J.

(Concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

I agree with the majority opinion except for the following.
The appeal board erred in failing to terminate the compensation as of May 8, 1967. The deposition of the plaintiff’s own physician, Dr. Albert Lerner, disclosed the following: On May 8, 1967, Dr. Lerner re-examined Mrs. Litwin and conducted certain tests which disclosed that the serologic agglutination titer for brucellosis was negative. The doctor stated:
“So that on the basis of this, we certainly could no longer make the diagnosis of brucellosis in Mrs. Litwin at that time.”
The doctor was then asked the following question and gave the following answer:
“Q. And as of that date, she was recovered, is that correct?
“A. As of that date, she was recovered.”
The doctor went on to testify that the plaintiff had some symptoms related to an iron deficiency anemia which, the doctor concluded, was not related to the brucellosis. The doctor was very specific in his diagnosis and emphasized “She would certaintly not be incapacitated further on the basis of her brucellosis * * *.”
Later, on cross-examination, the doctor reiterated
“I would certainly feel that any residual symptoms of chronic brucellosis should be absent by this time * *
The doctor subsequently stated:
“It would be worthwhile medically for Mrs. Litwin to have her titer repeated again.”
*142It is this last statement that I think has misled my colleagues and perhaps the appeal board as well. It is obvious from Dr. Lerner’s testimony that he believed that a person who has once had brucellosis should have re-examinations. This, however, does not denote that the patient is suffering from any residual effects from brucellosis. As delineated above, the doctor clearly states that the patient did recover from her brucellosis on or before May 8, 1967.
There is not one iota of evidence in the record to support the appeal board’s determination to continue compensation past May 8, 1967.
I would reverse this portion of the appeal board’s determination.