Court Opinion

ID: 9878290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 16:52:26.976434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:34.590138
License: Public Domain

MITCHELL, J.,
dissents with opinion:
¶ 16 The evidence was abundantly clear that Claimant had severe pre-existing degenerative joint disease in his knee. The knee replacement which the trial court has authorized has everything to do with Claimant’s preexisting disease process and nothing to do with his work-related fall and “contusion.” Claimant’s degenerative joint disease is not compensable. See 85A O.S. 2(b)(6). Whether or not Claimant was symptomatic before he fell and bruised his knee is irrelevant. The authorized knee replacement surgery is contrary to law and I respectfully dissent.