Workman v. Frederickson Motor Express

Defendants argue that the medical evidence fails to support a finding that plaintiff's disability resulted from the admittedly compensable accident, rather than pre-existing degenerative processes and/or the subsequent motor vehicle accident. In addition to the plaintiff's testimony, it is established that he was able to work up until the date of the accident, and has remained seriously impaired since. "There are many instances in which the facts in evidence are such that any layman of average intelligence and experience would know what caused the injuries complained of." Tickle v. Standard…