Workers’ Compensation – Expert Testimony – Causation of Injuries

The North Carolina Industrial Commission did not err in finding causation between the 2017 accident and plaintiff’s left shoulder injury.

We affirmed.

Defendants Federal Express Corporation and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., appealed from an opinion and award of the Full Commission of the North Carolina Industrial Commission awarding plaintiff previous and ongoing medical expenses, total disability compensation, and attorneys’ fees. Defendants argued the Full Commission erred by relying on hypothetical and speculative medical testimony insufficient to prove causation for plaintiff’s injury.

Plaintiff has been employed by FedEx for approximately 22 years. In 2017, plaintiff allegedly injured both shoulders, his neck, and right knee while attempting to pull up a heavy garage door that jammed. The day of the injury, at the direction of FedEx, plaintiff obtained medical treatment at Arrowood Medical Clinic where he was diagnosed with unspecified muscle strain of the right arm and muscle spasms. He was restricted from working with his right arm. Plaintiff’s restrictions were lifted after a follow-up appointment. In 2020, a doctor performed shoulder surgery on plaintiff’s left shoulder, for which plaintiff paid for out-of-pocket because defendants contested the compensability of the injury. Plaintiff returned to work after the surgery in September 2020. In December 2020, Deputy Commissioner Mary Claire Brown held a hearing on the compensability of plaintiff’s left shoulder injury. Plaintiff’s claim was denied. Plaintiff timely appealed to the Full Commission, which found in his favor. Defendants appealed the Full Commission’s opinion and award.

Defendants contended the testimony of Dr. Dana Piasecki, the authorized treating physician for the injury, is incompetent to show medical causation because the testimony was based on a hypothetical and was equivocal. Even assuming Dr. Piasecki’s deposition testimony was insufficient to support the Commission’s conclusion of law finding causation, there is still competent evidence to support a causal relationship. Dr. Piasecki unequivocally stated his opinion that the 2017 injury caused plaintiff’s left shoulder injury in a letter to plaintiff’s counsel. Counsel’s letter inquired “[d]o you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself and to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether it is more likely than not that [Plaintiff’s] left shoulder condition was proximately caused by his accident on May 18, 2017?” Dr. Piasecki checked “Yes.”

At his 2021 deposition, when questioned about whether plaintiff’s left shoulder injury was “causally related to the May 18th, 2017, work injury[,]” Dr. Jonathan Paul, who diagnosed plaintiff with bilateral shoulder injuries stemming from his 2017 injury, testified that he did not think it was. However, on May 19, 2020, when plaintiff received an independent medical examination from Dr. Paul at the direction of defendants, he diagnosed plaintiff with “bilateral AC joint sprains from 2017 WC injury.” Moreover, Dr. Paul stated that “[b]ased upon the available information, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there is a causal relationship between the [Plaintiff]’s current condition and the reported injury.” The Commission had both Dr. Paul’s previous report containing his prior diagnosis and opinion as well as his testimony walking back his previous statements when deciding the matter. Thus, the Commission was best suited to weigh the evidence and ultimately did so in favor of plaintiff. The Commission received evidence by two medical experts tending to show that Plaintiff’s injury to his left shoulder was caused by the May 18, 2017 accident. Therefore, this justifies the conclusion that plaintiff carried his burden of proving causation. Defendants failed to show there is no evidence supporting the Commission’s finding of fact on causation which in turn supports the Commission’s conclusion of law.

Affirmed.

Keenan v. Federal Express Corp. (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 012-120-24, 8 pp.) (Jefferson Griffin, J.) Appealed from the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Sumwalt Anderson Law Firm, by Mark T. Sumwalt, Richard L. Anderson, and Lauren H. Walker, for Plaintiff-appellee; Cranfill Sumner LLP, by Steven A. Bader and J. Michael Ricci, for defendant-appellants. North Carolina Court of Appeals Unpublished