*1 HOUSER, Claimant-Appellant, Harold
v. STEEL,
SOUTHERN PIPE IDAHO &
INC., Employer, Fi and United States
delity Guaranty Company, surety, De &
fendants-Respondents. 13589, 14207.
Nos.
Supreme Court Idaho.
June 1982.
Rehearing Aug. Denied 1982. *2 Steel, Inc., earning per
and week as $170.00 working day a diesel mechanic. While truck, on a Mr. Houser fell from the cab truck, injuring his left knee. Mr. Hous- subsequently family phy- er was seen his sician, Slickers, Dr. Randall J. of Twin Falls. When Mr. Houser’s condition failed improve as the result of Dr. Slicker’s treatment, the doctor referred Mr. Houser Phillips, orthopedic to Dr. Michael sur- geon. Phillips subsequently performed meniscectomy (surgical removal of torn cartilage joint). from the knee Since that time, Mr. Houser has been under the contin- uing care of Dr. Slickers. given
Notice of the accident was
within
sixty days
employer.
employer
The
had secured its
under the
liability
Work-
Compensation
through
men’s
Act
United
Fidelity
Casualty Company.
and
A
States
Houser,
dispute arose between Mr.
his em-
concerning
ployer,
surety
and its
the extent
liability
injury.
for Mr. Houser’s
The
parties being
agreement,
to reach an
unable
application
hearing
Mr. Houser filed an
for
hearing
with the Industrial Commission. A
subsequently held on
was set for and
Au-
7,
gust
1979. The Commission determined
period
that the issues before it were the
temporary disability
Houser’s total
Mr.
Mary
Linda Pear-
McCarthy
Leslie T.
per-
extent of Mr. Houser’s
the nature and
son, Lewiston,
claimant-appellant.
for
disability.
manent
McPeek,
Barrett,
Michael 6.
John W.
traumatic ar-
Dr. Slickers testified
Blanton,
Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett &
knee,
in Mr. Houser’s left
present
thritis is
Cht’d, Boise,
defendants-respondent.
for
undergone
prolonged
that Mr. Houser had
and,
opinion,
Mr.
recovery period,
McPADDEN, Justice.
to work in
not be able to return
Houser will
appeals
By
of the court these two
order
no
occupation. Dr. Slickers made
his usual
argument and sub-
consolidated for
were
surgery is
further
statements as to whether
record,
argued
were
same
mitted
required.
same time.
before the court at the
his left knee
testified that
Mr. Houser
No. 13589
meniscectomy
hurting since the
quit
has not
appeal of claim-
presented by the
Issues
that the knee
He observed
performed.
attacking
Commission’s
ant
the Industrial
degenerating rather
than
joint
been
per-
an award of
granting claimant
order
testified
further
improving. Mr. Houser
partial disability in the amount
manent
long length
any
that he is unable to stand
hip will be dis-
loss of the
10%
his knee “will
on occasion
of time and that
cussed first.
to his
go
from under him.” In addition
out
that he
injury,
Houser testified
Mr.
Houser
January
Mr. Harold
On
August
in falls in June and
Pipe
injured his back
employee of
was an
Southern
1978, which
been
19,1979.
he believed had
caused
law on December
The Commis-
by the buckling under of his knee. He
sion
found
Mr. Houser’s condition was
stated that he had constant
stable
January
as of
and that
sit
lower back
could not
paid
area and
employer
surety
and its
had
sums to-
prolonged period of time because of the
taling $4,936.83
benefits.
pain. Mr.
*3
Houser also testified
he Commission further found that Mr. Houser
sedentary
could not do
work because his
only
a permanent partial disability
suffers
injury prevented
sitting long
back
him from
leg
of
of the loss of the
at the
as a
hip
10%
enough
type
to do that
of work.
9, 1978,
result
January
of the
industrial
accident.
It also found that the
does
record
testimony
Mrs. Houser’s
was corrobora-
that
Mr.
surgery
establish
further
of
tive
her
testimony.
husband’s
reasonably required
Houser’s knee is
as a
hearing,
At the
reports
medical
of Dr.
accident,
result of the
but that Mr. Houser
Phillips were entered into evidence. The
will require elastic knee braces.
reports
Phillips
that Dr.
indicated
could
The Industrial
as
Commission concluded
during
nothing
post-operative
find
ex-
matter of
that
Houser had
law
Mr.
failed
justify
amination of Mr. Houser to
addition-
preponderance
establish
evi-
surgical
of the
procedure
al
or medical treatment.
disability
dence
He
suffers a
physical
discontinued Mr. Houser’s
ther-
leg
hip
in excess
apy
Phillips
in October
of 10% loss of the
at the
or
1978. Dr.
examined
29, 1979,
again
Mr. Houser
January
surgery
necessary.
further
It there-
time
give
which
he deemed it
appropriate
fore ordered that Mr. Houser is entitled to
Houser a permanent physical impair-
Mr.
total temporary
benefits
disability
from
rating.
report
ment
His
of the examination
period
9, 1978,
commencing January
and
going
stated
Mr. Houser was
to work
15,1979,
ending January
employer
perma-
and rated Mr. Houser with a 10%
and surety receive a
in the
of
credit
amount
nent
impairment of the lower ex-
$4,936.83 against
due,
the sum
Mr.
tremity.
permanent par-
Houser receive an
of
award
tial
in the amount of 10% of loss
also
hearing
Commission
allowed the
of
leg
hip,
at the
employer
and that the
to be continued
obtain the testimony
of
and surety pay
of all
the cost
reasonable
Taylor,
surgeon,
Dr. Keith
an orthopedic
and necessary
expenses
medical
for a rea-
deposition.
Taylor
Dr.
had examined Mr.
period
time,
sonable
of
including elastic
Houser at
request
employer
of the
braces,
but
surgical proce-
that future
surety
its
subsequently
ordered arthos-
dures have not been established as reason-
copy
arthoscopy
the knee.1 The
ably necessary.
performed
Alphonsus Hospital
at St.
Boise in January 1979. As a result of the
compensation cases,
workmen’s
examination and
Dr.
arthoscopy,
Taylor
questions
court’s review is
law
limited to
was unable to substantiate Mr. Houser’s
findings
and determinations of whether the
complaints
instability
fact of
are
Industrial Commission
knee, and that Mr. Houser
should
able to
by substantial,
supported
evi
competent
to employment.
return
Taylor
also rat-
72-732(1);
72-724(2)
dence.
I.C.
§§
ed Mr.
Houser’s
physical impair- Sykes
Co.,
761,
v. C. P. Clare &
100 Idaho
ment at
compared
10%
leg
loss
(1980);
With this
(1979);
before
as well
143
as
Madron v.
Giant
94
Green
reports
medical
(1972).
and other evidence
Q. Well, stand, then, you the if do take you subjective complaint and a Slickers, have a testimony Admittedly, the of Dr. suffering person says earlier, am is at variance with as summarized subjective finding you give this do not opinions Taylor. of Dr. professional validity? Nonetheless, testimony Taylor of Dr. com- above constitutes substantial lack of detailed they if are —if there’s a Not supporting the Commis- petent evidence significant subjective findings any claimant suffers findings of fact that sion’s up.” it back partial disability of 10%loss of Sykes v. C. P. Clare & leg hip. case, Q. And, Doctor, being do Callahan, Co., 97 supra; Thom v. why reason you know of medical (1975). out, give give the knee would next asserts that Com- instability; can claimant day due to out each consider duty to fulfill its mission failed explain medically?
445 must both medical and nonmedical factors its be based an assessment of the trustworthiness, reliability, probative evaluation of claimant’s disabili such, ty. assertion, As to claimant directs value of the evidence. As the deter- 72-422, question the court’s attention to I.C. which mination is in the first § instance “[permanent part, exper- particular states is a fact committed to the Commission; per basic in the evaluation of consideration tise of the and its determina- disability, contributing weight credibility manent and is a tion fac as to the of the to, of, necessarily tor but not indication appeal is conclusive on unless it permanent disability.” appears clearly the entire extent of to be erroneous. Arnold v. Splendid Bakery, See I.C. 72-425. supra. Consistent I.C. § Claimant 72-425, 72-422 and claimant also such showing, §§ directs failed to make and there- fore, the court’s attention to statement it cannot said that the Commission Lyons Special Indemnity v. Industrial erred in its conclusion that had Fund, 403, 406, 1360, 1363 98 Idaho proof. failed to meet his burden of (1977), addition medical “[i]n No. 14207 permanent impairment, factors of the Com also mission must consider nonmedical fac appeal Issues raised of claimant age, sex, tors such as economic and social challenging the Industrial Commission’s or- environment, training and usable skills.” der denying subsequent application for a also, Murray See v. Hecla Min. hearing will next be discussed. (1977); P.2d Francis v. Amal During appeal pendency in no. *5 Sugar Co., 407, gamated 98 Idaho in late November claimant filed (1977). 1364 an application hearing for a the Indus- position by Commission, The advanced claimant trial alleging injury an to his appears permanent to be that a whenever August back in of 1978 direct was the result impairment physical rating given, the injury the knee he in January sustained rating disability in all cases must exceed 1978 while the employ Southern permanent physical the Steel, Pipe employer Inc. The by taking into the consideration various surety duly its filed an answer to the nonmedical factors application. outlined under the The answer a included motion compensation workmen’s problem law. The ground dismiss the compensa- on that the facing claimant is that there is no such bility of back injury already claimant’s had bearing evidence in the record on by prior dis been decided the Commission the ability beyond above and the im hearing.
pairment rating. argument on the Oral motion to dismiss February 25,1981, was heard before referee
Finally, claimant asserts that the Youngstrom. Robert C. The referee there- erred in Commission its conclusion of law after submitted the Commission his re- had by claimant failed to establish a port and recommendation that order be preponderance of the evidence that he suf dismissing the application entered for hear- permanent fers a in excess of 10% ing, reasoning that: loss of the In hip. light, this argument appears difficulty to boil down “The which the claimant en- greater to the that a present fact number of wit counters in his case is that he supported litigated nesses a view different from the previously An issue. exami- conclusion reached the transcript Commission. The nation proceedings, greater fact that a appeal number witnesses which is on Supreme now to the supported Court, view testified, a different from the conclu shows the claimant is of sion reached no moment in determin length, injury about his back and his ing preponderance of the evidence. Ar back condition which he contended Splendid Bakery, nold v. fall caused a due to his left unstable (1965). Rather, P.2d 271 the determination knee. The Commission this evi- heard subsequent application then entered a award- hearing dence and decision in the ing case, sought the claimant certain workmen’s com- instant additional compen- pensation consequences benefits for the injuries allegedly sation for back sustained injury. of his This is the matter which is August alleged- in a fall in which was appeal now on .... ly instability occasioned of claimant’s
previously injured knee. This is same incident which formed the basis for claim- judicata Under the doctrine of res a ant’s claim of total and disabili- merits, action, judgment prior ty prior sum, proceeding. in the involving bars a second action the same proceeding in the instant case and in the parties based on the same of action. cause prior proceeding oper- arose out of the same brought upon Where a second action is parties. ative facts between the same The action, different cause of the doctrine of properly applica- Commission dismissed the estoppel precludes relitigation collateral hearing tion for on the basis of the doctrine actually litigated necessary issues conclusion, judicata. of res Given this the outcome first action. that, applicability of the doctrine of collateral Referee concludes because the estoppel need not be discussed. litigated alleged injury back action, prior in the ap- which is now on The order of the Industrial Commission Court, peal Supreme preclud- he is granting claimant an award of relitigating ed from matter partial disability is affirmed. The order of present action before the Commission.” dismissing the Industrial Commission claim- Upon report review of the referee’s subsequent application hearing ant’s for a recommendation, 27, 1981, April In- respondents. affirmed. Costs to appli- dustrial Commission ordered that the hearing We af- cation for be dismissed. BAKES, J., and C. DONALDSON and firm. SHEPARD, JJ., concur. judicata, Under the doctrine of res BISTLINE, Justice, concurring and dis- judgment prior pro on the merits in a *6 senting. ceeding subsequent bars a lawsuit between parties upon the same the same cause of Ramseyer Ramseyer,
action.
v.
98 Idaho
I.
554,
(1977);
Murphy
Joyce
In the
the claimant
imper
highly
the Court’s attention that it is
sought
compensation benefits
workmen’s
,
entirely
ative that
Court
correct
permanent disability on the
for total and
affirming
claim
No. 13589—otherwise the
injury
sustained in the
basis of the
9,
very
ant is left with
little other than
January
on
1978 and
industrial accident
possibility
seeking
re-open
injuries allegedly sustained in falls in
based
back
1978,
August
change
which were said to
of condition or because of manifest
June and
instability
injustice. Although
the claimant’s brief
by
have been occasioned
prepared with am
injured
thoroughly
testified at No. 13589 is
his
knee. Claimant
controlling de
length
alleged
injuries
ple
reference to this Court’s
about these
back
cisions,
Corporation,
Dean v. Dravo
97 Ida
their effects on his
condition and
158,
(1975);
v. Pre-
447
594,
Corporation,
ston Theatres
B.
63 Idaho
(1942);
Baugh,
above and the physical impairment rating.” agree I cannot II. with the Court’s
conclusion that there is no evidence in the record which would justify disability the rating physical impairment above the rat- Initially I note that employer-surety the ing. agree Nor can I with the Court’s places great Sykes reliance on v. C. P. Clare characterization argu- of the claimant’s (1980), & ment. they register mild bewilderment claimant makes no case. mention C. would assume that claimant’s counsel either point, point, Although saw that case as not in or if in the Court concludes that there persuasive not in is pointed for reasons out no evidence in the record which Bistline, dissenting opinion the J. A justify the above inquiry unnecessary rating, resolution of that to is even a brief examina- proper determination of this claimant’s tion of the record there demonstrates that appeal, point the herein law involved considerable in the amount evidence being considerably finding. dissimilar. record that would justify such a The record began pain shows that the claimant region. lower-back In the working when he was twelve or thirteen Eye-Hand-Foot Coordination, VALPAR years old and that he employed has been Mr. Houser percentile.” scored at the 84th chiefly as a since that time. It mechanic The record is replete with reveals eighth that Mr. Houser had an the claimant and his wife he in grade education and that Mr. Houser was inju- continual as a result of the knee general concerned with his lack of educa- ry. Although Taylor, Dr. orthopedist the tion. The record also reveals that Mr. performed who claimant’s surgery, given Houser was tests for various skills stated that from viewpoint a medical by Opportunities Unlimited, abilities could nothing1 find to substantiate the Inc., and that the results were as follows: complaints Slickers, Peabody “In the Individual Achievement physician who seeing has been Mr. Test, Mr. Houser scored in the fourth Houser regularly since surgery, testi- grade, mathematics, fourth month or fied: at percentile, compared 5th when “We do have some indicators that reading recognition, with adults. In Mr. right. knee isn’t He has some arthritic grade, Houser scored at the sixth sixth he, changes, occasionally gets effusion month, percentile; or 8th whereas in definitely and he has a lot of reading comprehension, Mr. Houser point longer he can no perform previ- his month, grade, scored in the ninth second ous tasks. We may say equals percentile. spelling, or 25th Mr. Hous- pain, but, less, none the there is evi- eighth grade, er scored fourth dence, there’s pathology, maybe not month, percentile, general or 12th and in the point affecting it is him but I information, Mr. Houser scored in the judge can’t that. You don’t have a ther- month, grade, per- eleventh fifth or 37th mometer to stick in there and measure centile. The total test score indicated pain.” scoring eighth grade, Mr. Houser testimony by The record also contains percentile, compared or 11th when with Slickers that Mr. Houser unable population. compared an adult When return to his former line of work due to the seniors, high with academic school Mr. swelling The knee. testimo- percentile Houser scored at the 45th ny of Dr. Taylor does not contradict that of Comprehension the Bennett Mechanical Dr. Slickers. Dr. Taylor merely stated that per- Test. Mr. Houser scored at the 5th there why was no reason of he knew which Aptitude centile on Differential Test the claimant could not in work as a (space relations), compared when stated, diesel mechanic. In addition he “I high The school seniors. Revised Minne- do not feel that has suffi- claimant] [the Paper Test sota Form Board indicated finding cient on examination of his knee per- scored the 15th that Mr. Houser limiting that would be a factor to him to centile, compared applicants when prevent returning ordinary him from and mainte- electrical and mechanical gainful employment.” nance work. physical aspects, Mr. Houser scored in testimony by
“In record also contains percentile in Minnesota Rate injured the 5th to the effect that he Mr. Manipulation giving Test. Houser was back as a result of his knee out and *8 complete unable to the VALPAR Small that he has been in as a result of that section, (mechanical) owing injury injury Tay- Tools to since the occurred. Dr. in his lower back. In the VALPAR lor testified Mr. Houser’s knee was not Motion, Range injury Hous- Whole-Body of Mr. unstable as a result of the and the percentile, resulting surgery. Taylor er scored in the 80th indicat- also testified knee, ing his left as well as that he did consider claimant’s back some Appendix. See 1. However,
injury impairment rating. findings suggests Commission’s only subsequent injury, the fact of this like the “conflicting” medical was above, discussed certainly facts was “evi- considered in this case. might jus-
dence” in the record which appropriate presume It would not be rating tified a in excess of the that Dr. Taylor considered nonmedical fac- impairment rating for claimant’s knee. evaluating permanent tors Houser’s impairment. The evaluation of D. permanent physical impairment governed is “ The Court misconstrues the claimant’s ar- 72-424, by provides: I.C. which ‘Evalu- § gument position when it states that “[t]he (rating) permanent impairment’ ation by appears advanced claimant to be that appraisal a medical of the nature and ex- permanent physical impairment whenever a injury tent of the or disease as it affects an given, disability rating in all injured personal employee’s efficiency in permanent physical cases exceed the must daily living, activities of such as self- impairment rating by taking into considera- care, communication, living normal pos- tion the various nonmedical outlined factors tures, ambulation, elevation, traveling, and compensation under the workmen’s law.” I nonspecialized activities bodily mem- believe that the claimant’s contention is permanent bers.” The evaluation of physi- in this case the Commission did not impairment cal therefore should not involve give proper consideration to the nonmedical consideration nonmedical factors such as factors in its evaluation of his total disabili- sex, education, age, and economic and social ty. appears support The record case, environment. In this Taylor’s tes- claimant’s contention. timony indicates that the nonmedical fac- tors were not considered in his evaluation of Fact, Findings part In its II under permanent physical impairment. Houser’s (Employee Wages), the Status & Commis- sion states: guide- The Commission must follow the 1,1978, January by legislature
“On claimant was em- lines established in deter- ployed by Pipe mining defendant disability. Southern total I.C. Steel, Inc., earning per specifically and permanent & 72-422 states that $170.00 § January as a diesel physical impairment week mechanic. On “is a basic considera- 9,1978, (born 9,1944) July was a tion in the evaluation of disabili- children, to, ty, contributing married man with two minor and is a factor but not 3,1978, of, dates July necessarily whose of birth are an indication the entire ex- July permanent disability.” (Emphasis 1967. tent of added.) 72-425 states that I.C. the eval- § old, years he was thirteen claim- “Since permanent disability ap- uation of “is an major experience ant’s as a has been die- praisal injured employee’s present sel mechanic.” probable ability future (Permanent part Under V Partial Disabili- gainful activity as it is affected ty) the Commission reviews the medical tes- medical factor of finds, timony presented that was sex, age, nonmedical factors such as evidence, conflicting “based that as a education, economic and social environ- result of an industrial accident sustained added.) (Emphasis ment.” 9, 1978, January claimant on claimant suf- rule, permanent partial disability general fers a As a I believe it 10% would be hip.” Despite presume loss of the inappropriate that the Commis- legislature clear mandate of the and of this sion considered the factors found in I.C. Court, nowhere in this section of the Find- where no such 72-425 consideration of § ings appear appears of Fact does there to be the factors in the record. There is factors, way consideration nonmedical such as no for a claimant who is denied com- education, sex, age, pensation, economic and social en- reviewing or for this Court in fact, denial, language vironment. appeal such a to on a bare record *9 Commission, whether or not the is in good determine Commission the Court as posi- a complied statutory duty. has with its It is weight tion and credibility to evaluate its as especially inappropriate presume in this was reading the only Commission—both case that the Commission considered cold Today’s record. decision the Court factors, language nonmedical since strength lends much wisdom of that Findings that only its of Fact is the “con- rule. Another rule which certainly has flicting” medical was evidence considered. some applicability here that which allows side-steps The Court this whole issue testimony less credence to the of an exam- casually stating is no that there evidence in ining physician against as that of the treat- support the record which a disability ing physician. Taylor Dr. conceded that he physical impairment above the rat- made the one examination of claimant sole- ing. Even the review of briefest the rec- ly purpose furnishing for the report ord, however, simply demonstrates this surety. is not the case. is no Since there indication Taylor’s examining expert Dr. stance in- Commission considered nonmedical give cluded a staunch refusal to any consid- determining factors claimant’s disability eration history to the claimant’s as related rating, there should abe reversal of the claimant, apparent and an disinclination order, Commission’s directions with that on independent to make attempt cor- it remand reconsider and restate its find- instance, roboration. For these indicative delineating application ings therein the excerpts: statutory above-mentioned law to medical condition. “Q. And if an individual what we would call a pain, low tolerance for in other APPENDIX words, they pain can’t accommodate the or Taylor’s negative testimony was, Dr. as get along with the that would be more opinion, predicat- out in pointed the Court’s disabling person high to a who had a toler- upon peculiar simply ed stance he it; pain ance for stand could a lot of “subjective” anyone’s does not honor com- right? suffering pain. that he is This plaint seems Well, A. using I would —I dislike the word strange practi- indeed when thousands of ‘disabling.’ it’s interpretative I think throughout country routinely tioners thing. people And I think subjective complaints pre- hear still, know, they you can can still function various medicines which hopefully scribe adapt satisfactorily to their conditions. provide paying patients will relief. essence, Taylor, accept who does not Q. opinion stated that in his Slickers complaints valid which cannot as be was matter of Mr. Houser’s now chron- substantiated, states objectively only that you agree ic. with that? Would up any objective is unable to come with A. I I use the term think would ‘stable.’ findings which substantiate claimant’s re- Q. curring pain. or chronic. What’s the differ- undoubtedly This would be Stable cases, in countless thousands of but ence between— true negative much worth should such testi- how term ‘stable.’ Dr. A. would use the given, mony especially be when it is use term he Slickers can whatever wants. always answer is available? The found in Q. be correct if he Would Dr. Slickers said v. Morrison-Knudsen Beaver opinion it would chronic? where the Court stated, generally as is law: “Positive opinion I would not venture an as to prevail negative will over expert what Dr. conclusions are. Slickers’ may testimony.” To which be added expert long time this Court has adhered to man to his this, sleep- Did check this rule that in like where Dr. a case ing habits? Taylor’s testimony not taken before the
Q. you if history, And without the couldn’t A. I sleep him, didn’t with but I do have history, you obtain a would in a difficult some my conclusion; comment on physical as to what position you to make a would not? Q. you What your do have in notes? clarification, I,May MR. BARRETT: for MR. BARRETT: As to what man told you when this history, talk about includes a him sleeping? about his things subjective complaints lot of besides pain. you history referring Are to Right. MR. McCARTHY: pain or complete history? I WITNESS: have no here notation about History pain, right. MR. McCARTHY: sleeping habits. coming your to WITNESS: It’s aid in BY MR. McCARTHY: conclusion, yes. Q. Well, in brought if it the testi- out BY MR. mony McCARTHY: injury that since the this to date of present time he had either that either Q. give And you any did Mr. Houser tests slept on floor in home or in their a pain? for special davenport acquired have ' they that Any A. pain? tests for night slept he has not wife one his Q. Yes. since injury inability this because his to that, sleep, way, change your any examining knee, A. On yes. his You cer- opinion? tainly see what is and check motion his ligaments muscles and see what point. certainly A. this Not at I would reactions are examination as to a availa- have to have lot more information whether he during examina- very suspicious ble and would be of com- tion and whether he has discomfort cer- plaints that, know, you any reference to like positions tain or with certain motions of the a injury. knee you rotating through are it various Q. Well, pains says man his knee ranges of motions. continually sleep him and he is unable Q. right. All Did he or evi- demonstrate pain. because of any you pain? dence to Again, A. subjective complaints these are you opinions -have to base your and A. Yes. findings subsequent subjective findings Q. Yes, where, point he did. And your examination and aid that’s —to con- examination, was the demonstrat- objective clusions. And these are not find- ed? ings, subjective they complaints. are A. you When moved his knee out into Q. Well, stand, you then, do take the if extension, out, straightening it he described you subjective complaint per- a and a through posterially discomfort the knee and says pain, son suffering you am in the knee. do give subjective finding validity? Q. you Did he describe it? tell Could they A. Not if are —if a lack there’s looking suffering him he was significant subjective findings up. to back it experiencing pain? Q. Dr., examining large patient, A. No. part subjective the examination is Q. that, you You didn’t look at for him matter, aspect of the is it not? waiting were for him to you? tell talking A. You are about the examination says A. at him You look and he it’s uncom- or the history? crying, fortable. He wasn’t no. Q. history. very, The very Isn’t im- necessary person Would it be portant? cry demonstrate to sufficient history important, yes. disabling? make it
MR. Is question? BARRETT: that a No, A. it’s not for necessary cry. him to MR. MCCARTHY: Yes. Q. Well, you when crying, said wasn’t he BY MR. MCCARTHY: what tell you pain did he about that Q. opinion I time, your want there. If it’s a then? pain day night. constant uncomfortable, just A. He said it was a discomfort in his when it would A. He didn’t tell me—he did not relate positions. move in certain that it was pain my history. a constant on Q. It would hurt? Q. you Did ask him? A. It’s uncomfortable. IA. asked pain him when he had and he Q. It was uncomfortable. Could he stated pain had he in those conditions straighten out his knee? that I previously described. he But did not A. He five lacked —let’s see—about de- relate that it was pain. a constant grees getting of full it extension of out Q. always It was burning; wasn’t it? straight. Q. was And how much function there in A. always burning, just Not burning. you the knee as observed? Q. Well, pain Dr. Slickers related that this range of nearly A. He full motion. had was nature, of a constant based on his degrees twenty He about of full lacked history, presently and is treating Mr. Hous- degrees five extension. He flexion and er for the thing you same examined swelling good He had no of the knee. had that, him for. Would any way, change ligament very slight crep- stability. He had your opinion? kneecap as would move it itus in the throughout range He had no A. of motion. No. I would have to that from hear wasting significant atrophy, muscle or patient, from I can’t Slickers. These are about the knee. all muscles rely somebody else’s history. would findings a functional knee. for history to have a my own. stated, objec- Q. you as is not an But Q. Perhaps, your then, history, isn’t com- finding? tive plete; is that correct? A. No. you inferring A. Are saying that or that? Q. only you gave And the tests that him Q. you, I’m asking your history com- pain manipulation was of the knee? plete? A. And examination of knee. A. complete concerned, It’s as far as I was Q. None other? yes.
A. I’m not sure there’s other any way to Q. knee, concerned, As far pain you evaluate other were than on one examination of the knee. examination? Q. Now, if man because testified of A. Yes.” knee, sleep, in his he’s unable to would significance you? be of Well, certainly, part history it’s you evaluate, much like he has squats or knee when he kneels or up
whether he walks and down hill or
up facet, and down stairs. It’s small one
yes. present And that when he doing any things
was not other of these mentioned and it’s constant
pain?