Court Opinion

ID: 9535285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:47:42.880734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:12.776389
License: Public Domain

STEVENS, Judge.
This case is before the Court by writ of certiorari to review the lawfulness of an award and findings of The Industrial Commission issued 16 January, 1968 denying the petition to reopen.
The petitioner was injured in an industrial incident on 14 February, 1958. After numerous procedural moves and several medical consultation reports, the file was closed by Commission action taken on 31 March, 1961. The action so taken affirmed a prior denial of a request to reopen the claim. The 1961 action became final.
On 24 November, 1965, petitioner again sought to reopen the claim. The final action denying this request was entered on 16 January, 1968 and the matter was then brought to this Court by a writ of certiora-ri.
There are two basic questions which are presented to the Court. The first is whether the opinion of a qualified doctor which was adverse to the petitioner and was based upon an examination of the file is entitled to be considered by The Industrial Commission. The second is whether the evidence presented in relation to the petition to reopen reasonably required that the petition be granted.
To better understand the problems presented to the Court it is necessary that the facts be briefly outlined.
Initially the petitioner’s complaint, the thrust of the physical examinations, ahd the treatment were related to the petitioner’s right hand, right arm and shoulder. In connection with her treatment, she received cervical traction. She also received psychiatric evaluation. On 27 May, 1959 a myelogram was performed. “No definite persistent abnormality” was “seen” in the cervical area.
The file reflects that it was following the myelogram that the petitioner first complained of lumbar or low back problems. These are the problems with which we are now confronted. The psychiatrist’s report of his 10 June consultation states that it was on approximately 31 May while “she was walking slowly to visit a neighbor when she was ‘hit’ with a severe low back pain which resulted in persistence of the symptoms * * The attending physician’s report of his examination of 11 June, 1959 indicates that “patient has had low back and bilateral leg pains since May 31st * * *. She states that the low back and leg pain started on the 4th day of the myelogram and has persisted to the present. * * * If symptoms persist more than a few days, she should be re-hospitalized for spinal fluid studies.” The rehospitalization was accomplished with *534negative results. In corroboration of these medical reports at a hearing conducted in 1966, the petitioner testified:
“Q. Will you tell us when you made a complaint about your back ?
A. They did a myelogram on my back in May, 1959.
A. It was about three days after the myelogram was performed.”
The low back problem was considered by medical consultation boards on 3 July, 1959, on 13 October, 1959 and on 12 April, 1960. All of these matters took place prior to the initial closing of the file as above recited on 31 March, 1961.
In 1965 she conferred with Dr. Scheetz and with Dr. Gregory. As aforestated she filed a petition to reopen in November, 1965. Without granting the petition The Industrial Commission heard evidence on the issue as to whether the claim should be reopened and the first phase of the hearing was held in July, 1966. The evidence presented brought out that on 9 May, 1966 Dr. Gregory performed surgery. He testified:
“A. We did a laminectomy and excision of the herniated nucleus at L4, L5. There was a rather marked herniation of the posterior longitudinal ligament at each one of these levels which was causing pressure against the nerve root at each level. Following the resection the nerve root was freely moveable and so was the cord in the area.”
He related the condition which he found to the 1958 injury.
On cross-examination, both Dr. Scheetz and Dr. Gregory testified that they based their conclusions as to the causal relationship between the 1958 incident and the 1966 surgery upon the history which the petitioner had given to them without the opportunity of an examination of The Industrial Commission file. On cross-examination Dr. Scheetz stated that assuming an absence of low back pain complaint until after the 1959 myelogram that he could not with reasonable medical probability relate her problem to the 1958 incident. He further testified that, “ * * * well, the only history I have is that she had a myelogram in 1959 and that the trouble had been present prior to that time and had been recurring from that time until the present.” On cross-examination Dr. Gregory stated that if there were no low back complaints from February 1958 until after the myelo-gram of May 1959, such facts would have a bearing upon his opinion. He further testified:
“A. I am testifying to the fact that at the same time she sustained the injury to the shoulder, the upper area, that she could most probably have sustained an injury to the low back which, over a period of time, allowed this to occur.
Q. Then, Doctor, you are assuming there was a low-back injury in February, 1958, is that correct ?
A. Yes sir, this was my information.
Q. And this is because you were told of a low-back problem from 1959?
A. Well, the patient told me she had injured her back as well as the upper area at the time, this was the information I have.
Q. If that section were not so, she did not suffer an injury to her back in February, 1958, your opinion would have been modified?
A. I would have to.”
The referee who conducted the hearing recommended that the case be accepted for reopening. The Industrial Commission returned the file to the referee with the recommendation that the file be submitted to the medical department “for recommendations as to desirability of an orthopedic examination for the purpose of determining the relationship between the discovery of the protruded disc in 1966 and the industrial episode of Feb. 1958.” In response to this request the file was referred to the medical department and we quote the response.
*535“TO: COURTNEY L. VARNER, REFEREE
“FROM: DR. WALTER V. EDWARDS, MEDICAL DIRECTOR
“In accordance with our discussion, the file on this claimant is returned to you herewith.
“As I indicated in my discussion, in my opinion orthopedic examination at this time would serve no useful purpose in answering the question raised by you and the Commission. The patient has since that time been operated upon and physical findings at this time would be consistent with the postoperative state and not necessarily related to the accident in question.
“However, in my opinion, some of the questions which are raised might be adequately answered by review of the file by an orthopedic surgeon with the competence and objectivity and ability to express himself characterized by Dr. James Lytton-Smith.
“I would suggest that the entire file, including the microfilmed old records, the more recent reports and the transcript of hearing be forwarded to him for his review by you, posing the specific question of the relationship between the discovery of a protruded disc in 1966 and the industrial episode of February 14, 1958, or the myelography performed in connection with that incident.
“I am sure that Dr. Lytton-Smith will be most cooperative. If he is not available other orthopedic surgeons could serve equally well including Dr. Ronald Haines, Dr. Howard Aidem, or Dr. Thomas Taber, Jr.”
In accordance with this communication, the file was referred to Dr. Lytton-Smith who rendered his report. The report was submitted to petitioner’s counsel. By letter transmitting the report it was requested that counsel advise the referee as to, “ * * * whether or not you desire a further hearing for the purpose of examining Dr. Lytton-Smith.” We then find a memorandum to the file from the referee stating, “Applicant’s attorney desires to cross-examine Dr. Lytton Smith” and thereafter a notice of hearing bearing the notation, “At the Request of Applicant’s Attorney to Cross-examine Dr. Lytton-Smith.”
The hearing was held on 14 September, 1967. At the inception of the hearing, petitioner’s counsel offered to place her on the stand for brief testimony as to the exact mechanism of the incident and as to her history since the last hearing. This was objected to. The objection was sustained. The petitioner’s attorney urged that the file did not reflect the actual mechanism of the injury. The offer further stated, “She was not particularly aware of the back, low back pain, until approximately a year later.” The Commission attorney pointed out that much of the proffered matter was reflected in the earlier transcript and the petitioner was not permitted to testify. This referee was not the same referee who had conducted the earlier hearing.
Without attempting to detail Dr. Lyt-ton-Smith’s testimony, he expressed his professional opinion that when you consider the time interval between the industrial incident of February 1958 and the onset of back pains in May 1959 together with a review of the extensive file relative to medical examinations and consultations that there was an absence of the causal relationship between the industrial incident, the back pains complained of in 1959 and the surgery in 1966.
Answering the first question which we posed as to whether Dr. Lytton-Smith’s testimony was entitled to weight since his opinion was based upon examination of the file without a physical examination of the petitioner in her postoperative condition we hold that he was qualified to so testify. Tipton v. Industrial Commission, 7 Ariz.App. 39, 435 P.2d 874 (1968).
*536In answer to the second question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a denial of a re-opening, we hold that there was at the least a conflict of professional opinion which was resolved against the petitioner by The Industrial Commission and that she did not sustain the burden of proof cast upon her in support of her petition to reopen.
The award is affirmed.
DONOFRIO, C. J., concurs.