City of Jennings v Sabrina Williams
Release Date: July 28, 2020 (Accident Date Sept. 2010)
Venue: Eastern District (Div 4)
Plot Summary: Claimant alleged permanent total disability after she was assaulted in a "bloody beating" by an inmate for several minutes resulting in physical injuries and new PTSD with "worsening" of psychiatric conditions of anxiety and depression.
Cast
Ransom, ALJ
Moreland, M
McHugh, P
Hudson, J
Brockman
Bassett
Comments:
Dr. Brockman testified the accident was the prevailing factor in new conditions and aggravations of prior medical conditions. Dr. Bassett testified claimant had "new" and "old" disability of which 75% was new. The ALJ found claimant's "new" PTSD and new panic disorder alone supported liability against the employer and the accident was "so traumatic" that it supplanted her condition prior to the attack. The Commission affirm a last accident alone PTD in a 2-1 decision.
The Court found the commission's decision was not supported by competent evidence that the last accident was "so traumatic" to be a total and substituted the opinion of experts in a complex issue which found any total due to a combination.
The Court noted the Commission failed to complete its analysis to consider Fund liability when its conclusion of "last accident alone" was not supported by sufficient competent evidence. The "personal views" of the judge cannot provide sufficient basis to decide causation when there is expert testimony and the ALJ fails to account for the relevant medical testimony and the evidence is neither contradicted or impeached. The ALJ found "claimant was disabled due solely to he work injury" contrary to the undisputed testimony of both experts. The ALJ found the doctor to be credible although the doctor's opinion indicated a combination of psychiatric conditions new and old. .
The "horrific" nature of the accident did not permit the Commission to disregard the undisputed medical testimony without explanation nor base its finding on its personal opinion unsupported by sufficient evidence.
The employer argued the commission misapplied the law to rely upon a "she was working" defense to fund liability rather than an analysis of the condition constituted a hindrance or obstacle that could combine with a later work injury to cause a greater degree of disability than would have resulted without the pre-existing condition. The court found it was error for the Commission not to have applied that standard, and its decision was inconsistent with the Fund purpose "to ensure employers are not held solely responsible for a previously disabled employee's total permanent disability where a potion of that disability can be attributed to a pre-existing disability."
The court finds a PTD combo and remands for the Commission to determine the "proper amount" of the Fund's liability.
