Court Opinion

ID: 9740712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:40:39.989994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:19.900442
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
It is well established that a workers’ compensation claimant complaining of a subjective injury or disability cannot recover on the basis of nonmedical evidence alone. See, Fees v. Rivett Lumber Co., 228 Neb. 617, 423 N.W.2d 483 (1988); Coco v. Austin Co., 212 Neb. 95, 321 N.W.2d 448 (1982); Mack v. Dale Electronics, Inc., 209 Neb. 367, 307 N.W.2d 814 (1981). In Eiting v. Godding, 191 Neb. 88, 91-92, 214 N.W.2d 241, 244 *522(1974), we explained the rationale for this rule:
Where the claimed injuries are of such a character as to require skilled and professional persons to determine the cause and extent thereof, the question is one of science. Such a question must necessarily be determined from the testimony of skilled professional persons and cannot be determined from the testimony of unskilled witnesses having no scientific knowledge of such injuries.
The obvious corollary of this proposition is that when expert evidence regarding the cause of a subjective injury is produced and is uncontroverted, it is entitled to greater deference. As this court stated in Mann v. City of Omaha, 211 Neb. 583, 592-93, 319 N.W.2d 454, 459 (1982):
[W]here the medical testimony is uncontroverted, unimpeached, and is given in matters of medical diagnosis which arc peculiarly within the range of the knowledge of the expert, the compensation court is not free to substitute its own diagnosis. It is not true that in every case the uncontested opinion of an expert is binding on the trier of fact, but where, as here, the testimony is based on firsthand knowledge, is credible, and has no demonstrable weaknesses or failure of foundation, such testimony cannot be ignored.
Accord, Sondag v. Ferris Hardware, 220 N.W.2d 903 (Iowa 1974) (greater deference is accorded expert testimony when the issue necessarily rests on medical expertise); Rutledge v. Industrial Commission, 9 Ariz. App. 316, 451 P.2d 894 (1969) (in workers’ compensation cases where causation is denied, uncontroverted expert opinion based on the facts is conclusive upon the trier of fact); Ross v. Sayers Well Servicing Company, 76 N.M. 321, 414 P.2d 679 (1966) (given the requirement that medical testimony is necessary where causation is contested, an uncontradicted medical opinion based upon the facts is conclusive upon the court); Hill v. Culligan Soft Water Service Company, 386 P.2d 1018 (Okla. 1963) (rule that trier of fact determines questions of causation inapplicable where only medical evidence in the record unequivocally attributes claimant’s condition to an industrial accident); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Blazier, 228 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. Civ. App. 1950) (the *523question whether the claimant suffered from polio or a heatstroke was peculiarly within the realm of scientific knowledge and thus the trial court was not authorized to make a diagnosis contrary to that of the only medical witness).
In this case only one physician offered an opinion as to the cause of Brandt’s injuries. In three separate letters and during his deposition Dr. Bainbridge stated his conclusion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Brandt’s injury resulted from cumulative and repetitive trauma arising from her employment at Leon Plastics. Despite the clarity of Dr. Bainbridge’s opinion, the rehearing panel and a majority of this court characterize his statements as “conflicting.” They do so based upon another letter written by Dr. Bainbridge in which he refers to Brandt’s “work related injury of December 12,1989.”
Contrary to the majority’s assertion,, however, Dr. Bainbridge did not write that “the injury occurred on two different dates.” Dr. Bainbridge made clear that the reference to a December 12 injury was inadvertent and intended only to identify the approximate date Brandt began experiencing pain radiating into her right leg. Dr. Bainbridge began treating Brandt on March 8,1990, personally discussed her history with both her and her husband, performed surgery on April 2,1990, and continued treating her through January 1991. His opinion as to the cause of Brandt’s injury is based upon a solid foundation of firsthand knowledge. There is nothing in his attempt to pinpoint the date Brandt’s pain became severe which detracts from the certainty of his opinion as to the cause of her injury.
The injury sustained by Brandt is of the type peculiarly within the knowledge of medical experts. There is no justification in law or reason for allowing the Workers’ Compensation Court to simply ignore Dr. Bainbridge’s conclusion that Brandt’s injury resulted from work-related activity. Though judges generally lack the skill and training to competently diagnose the etiology of subjective injuries and disabilities, the majority is determined to anoint them with the power to evaluate the accuracy of uncontroverted opinions rendered by those who are so trained. I therefore cannot join in the majority’s decision in this case and the sub silentio *524overruling of Mann v. City of Omaha, supra, which it represents.
In addition, I would note that in Heiliger v. Walters & Heiliger Electric, Inc., 236 Neb. 459, 461 N.W.2d 565 (1990), we rejected the proposition that an enhanced burden of proof applies in cases involving a preexisting disease or condition and disapproved of language in prior cases indicating such a burden exists. Significantly, language requiring proof that employment exertion contributed in a “material and substantial” degree to causing an injury appears in some pre-Heiliger cases imposing an enhanced burden of proof on the issue of causation. See, Spangler v. State, 233 Neb. 790, 448 N.W.2d 145 (1989); Sellens v. Allen Products Co., Inc., 206 Neb. 506, 293 N.W.2d 415 (1980). See, also, Chrisman v. Greyhound Bus Lines, Inc., 208 Neb. 6, 301 N.W.2d 595 (1981).
Given the decision in Heiliger, continued use of language regarding a “material and substantial” degree of proof is confusing and subject to the interpretation that it signifies the imposition of an enhanced burden of persuasion on the issue of causation. More to the point, the rehearing panel’s finding that Brandt failed to adduce sufficient evidence of causation is perhaps only explainable as the result of its deciding the case under an enhanced burden of proof. I respectfully dissent.
Grant, J., joins in this dissent.