Court of Appeals Rejects Claimant’s Extent of Injury Appeal
A Texas court of appeals has affirmed a trial court’s granting of a directed verdict in a claim where the injured worker contended that her injury extended to and included numerous disc herniations, cervical radiculitis, and lumbar radiculopathy. The decision in Kelley v. Aldine ISD, No. 15-15-00899-CV, decided January 31, 2017, followed the claimant’s suit for judicial review of a Division decision that her injury did not extend to the contested spinal conditions. The claimant presented no expert testimony at trial and the trial court granted the school district’s directed verdict. The claimant appealed.
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Expert testimony is generally necessary to establish causation of medical conditions that are “outside the common knowledge and experience of jurors.” See Guevara v. Ferrer, 247 S.W.3d 662, 665 (Tex. 2007). In limited cases, however, lay testimony may support a causation finding that links an event with a person’s physical condition. Id. at 666. This exception applies only in those cases in which general experience and common sense enable a layperson to determine the causal relationship with reasonable probability. See id.; Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729, 733 (Tex. 1984). In such cases, “lay testimony establishing a sequence of events which provides a strong, logically traceable connection between the event and the condition is sufficient proof of causation.” Morgan, 675 S.W.2d at 733.
The types of injuries for which Kelley sought compensation––multiple disc herniations, cervical radiculitis, and lumbar radiculopathy—are neither common nor basic. See Guevara, 247 S.W.3d at 669–70; City of Laredo v. Garza, 293 S.W.3d 625, 632–33 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.) (determining that lay testimony alone was not sufficient to prove medical causation of disc herniations and radiculopathy). Thus, this case is not one in which general experience and common sense enable a layperson to determine the causal relationship with reasonable probability. Kelly needed expert testimony to establish a causal connection between her work-related fall and her additional claimed injuries.3 See Guevara, 247 S.W.3d at 669–70; Garza, 293 S.W.3d at 632–33; cf. Humphrey v. AIG Life Ins. Co., No. 14-08-00793-CV, 2010 WL 2635643, at *5 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] Jul. 1, 2010, pet. denied) (concluding that expert testimony was necessary to establish that disc herniations and lumbar radiculopathy were “solely and directly” caused by an on-the-job back injury).
It is undisputed that Kelley presented no expert testimony establishing that her work-related fall was a producing cause of her disc herniations, cervical radiculitis, and lumbar radiculopathy. Thus, Kelley failed to provide evidence of probative value raising a material fact issue that her on-the-job injury was a producing cause of her medical conditions at issue. See Humphrey, 2010 WL 2635643, at *5; Garza, 293 S.W.3d at 632–33. The trial court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of Aldine ISD. See Gomer, 419 S.W.3d at 477.
The claimant has the opportunity to file a motion for rehearing with the court of appeals. Failing a successful effort in that regard, the claimant can file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. The decision whether to grant such review is discretionary on the part of the Supreme Court.
FOLIO
