Brown v Mesaba Aviation Inc., 2009 ACO #116
The Appellate Commission affirmed the magistrate’s denial of benefits for the plaintiff’s alleged pre-existing back condition. Despite the denial of benefits, the defendants appealed the magistrate’s finding that the defense examiner’s testimony, supporting the proposition that the plaintiff suffered a work-related strain, was sufficient to satisfy Fahr and the requirement that work cause a medically distinguishable condition. The Commission commented that defendant’s expert’s opinion that the plaintiff sprained or strained her back at work proved a medically distinguishable condition sufficient to satisfy Fahr. Key point: the plaintiff’s injury does not have to be objectively identifiable to support a change in pathology.
