Court Explains Worker's Compensation Causation Standard of Review
In Waters Brothers Contractors, Inc. v. Wimberley, No. 2070871 (Ct. Civ. App. March 6, 2009), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals discussed the standard of review regarding causation in a worker’s compensation case. The court found that the employer’s expert’s testimony did not defeat the employee’s claim for benefits. Although the employer's expert was the only expert witness to testify regarding medical causation, the trial court was not bound to accept his testimony. “The trial court has wide discretion in reaching its findings regarding medical causation. It may interpret the evidence according to its own best judgment. A trial court may infer medical causation from circumstantial evidence indicating that, before the accident, the worker was working normal with no disabling symptoms but that, immediately afterwards, those symptoms appeared and have persisted ever since. On appeal, a trial court's findings of fact based on conflicting evidence are conclusive on this court if they are supported by substantial evidence.” Id.
“‘Substantial evidence’ is ‘evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.’ In making that determination, we may not reweigh the evidence, and we must view the overall substance of the evidence in a light most favorable to the findings of the trial court.” Id.
“In determining medical causation, the trial court must consider the totality of the evidence, including the circumstantial evidence, lay testimony, and medical records. ‘It is in the overall substance and effect of the whole of the evidence, when viewed in the full context of all the lay and expert evidence, and not in the witness's use of any magical words or phrases, that the test finds its application.’” Id. (emphasis supplied).
