Opinion
December 20, 1961
Appeal from a decision and award predicated upon the finding that claimant's loss of vision in one eye was the result of physical strain, the decision quoting claimant's description of the incident as occurring when he lifted one end of a heavy water-soaked timber 15 feet to 18 feet long and 12 inches to 16 inches thick and his left eye "went black". Appellants' sole contention is that the finding of causal relation is not supported by substantial evidence. As against appellants' experts' denial of causation, claimant's ophthalmologist reported that he found a "healed vascular accident" in the eye, that apparently claimant had suffered a thrombosis of a small retinal vessel and that "there definitely seems to be a causal relationship between the vascular accident * * * and the stress and strain of lifting" — this being "an adequate cause * * * even though there might have been previous existing constitutional causes". Testifying, he said, "I can only say that lifting the heavy timber was the cause of the hemorrhage". Appellants attack this clear and adequate opinion evidence under an apparent misapprehension of the purport of the doctor's testimony on cross-examination. Thus, while he could not tell whether there had been more than one hemorrhage, he would, in substance, attribute no significance to recurrent hemorrhages of the vessel once it had been weakened by the original episode; and, contrary to appellants' contention, he did not conjecture that the chances were even that the condition was due to chorioretinitis — a nontraumatic inflammation — but when cross-examined as to the cause of that disease said that in 50% of the cases its cause was not determined; but, on the basis of the history upon which he relied, he specifically disputed any diagnosis of chorioretinitis. The report of the impartial ophthalmologist designated by the board stated that "it seems quite possible that [claimant] had a pre-existing disease in the macular area and that a hemorrhage may have resulted in this diseased area from the strain of lifting a heavy object thus causing his present loss of vision." Appellants elected not to cross-examine the specialist thus reporting. We are unable to agree with appellants' contention that his opinion was utterly lacking in probative force but it was not, in any event, necessary to the board's decision in view of the substantial evidence of causation to be found in the report and testimony of claimant's expert. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board. Coon, J.P., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.