Court Opinion

ID: 9552482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:11:24.643405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:57.114768
License: Public Domain

GOULD, J., pro tem., Dissenting.
I dissent. I cannot agree with the foregoing opinion in so far as it holds that expert medical testimony is not necessary to support the Commission’s finding of permanent injury. This case does not *139involve a patent permanent bodily injury such as loss of leg or other member of the body, visible and apparent to anyone, layman or expert, but has to do with a hidden physical impairment, involving the patient’s nerves, muscles and joints and complicated with a preexisting joint disease properly cognizable only by one trained and expert in such matters. To my mind it is plainly a situation with which a layman may not adequately deal, and which calls for the advice of one expertly versed in such matters by special education and experience.
In my opinion the matter should be remanded to the Industrial Accident Commission for further proceedings.
An application by petitioner to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on July 16, 1936.