Court Opinion

ID: 9845129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:15:35.965131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:52.332204
License: Public Domain

LeGRAND, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent because in my opinion the findings of the deputy commissioner are not only supported by substantial evidence but are the only ones possible under the record before us.
The outcome of this case depends upon the testimony of Dr. Jones, one of the two doctors who testified at the review hearing. The other one — Dr. Dubansky — gave plaintiff 20 per cent permanent disability of his left arm, which was the basis for the award.
However, the majority says the deputy either disregarded or discounted Dr. Jones’s testimony without explanation and without indication as to how or why he arrived at his conclusions concerning this medical evidence. I cannot agree; nor can I accept the rule which the majority apparently adopts: that findings on disputed facts in workmen’s compensation cases cannot be sustained unless we are told why such findings were made.
*511I think the deputy gave Dr. Jones’s testimony full credence in arriving at his decision. Both Dr. Dubansky and Dr. Jones testified by deposition. Both were extensively cross-examined. As already mentioned, Dr. Dubansky attributed to plaintiff a disability to his left arm. Dr. Jones gave no opinion as to any disability. In fact, he steadfastly refused to do so. This leaves the record in such a state that the only evidence of permanent disability is that given by Dr. Dubansky and the deputy commissioner allowed the full disability to which he had testified.
Although the record shows Dr. Jones was afforded numerous opportunities to give an opinion on plaintiff’s disability, he did not at any time express an opinion on that matter. The closest he came — and it isn’t very close — is in this statement on cross-examination:
“ * * * I think that the problem with regard to the left arm is improved since the original injury, but I am led also to understand that his incapacity with regard to the left arm is fairly well matched by his incapacity with regard to the neck pain and the headaches.” (Emphasis supplied.)
It is on this statement that the case is being remanded with instructions that the deputy clarify rulings which should already be crystal clear. I cannot believe the majority is really prepared to say this testimony is an expression of medical opinion upon which an award could be based. Quite the contrary, it bears out the doctor’s earlier refusal to give any disability rating.
I agree the medical testimony of both doctors is unsatisfactory but we take the record as it comes to us, not as we would like it to be. From a careful review of Dr. Jones’s testimony, it is indisputable that he expressed no opinion on plaintiff’s permanent disability. If the deputy had reached a result other than he did on this record, the award would have been without evidentiary support.
Since I share none of the majority’s uncertainty about how the deputy reached his decision, I cannot agree with its conclusion. I believe the trial court should be reversed and the review decision reinstated.
RAWLINGS, J., joins in this dissent.