Court Opinion

ID: 9693895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:09:07.017801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:52.231514
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Wright, J.:
I respectfully dissent. Concededly there was no accident. in the ordinary lay understanding of the term. Recovery must rest solely on the theory that, in thé performance of claimant’s normal work, there occurred an unexpected and unusual pathological result. However, such theory does not. apply where the disability results from the aggravation of a pre-existing physical weakness. The testimony clearly discloses that claimant suffered, from a back condition of long standing, *427and that his present disability is simply a recurrence. The Referee expressly states in his fifth finding that claimant’s “disability is due to aggravation of unstable lumbo-sacral spine”. This finding was not disturbed by the Board. There is no reason to remand the case for a determination of fact -which has already been made. The Board’s decision should be reinstated and affirmed.