Smith v. Mr. Sweeper Stores Inc.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, the sole question is whether Betty L. Smith or her employer/insurer bore the burden of proof of establishing that Smith’s claim for continued medical treatment after years of the employer paying for medical treatment for a work-related aggravation of a pre-existing injury was directly related to her work-related injury. After review, the superior court affirmed the appellate division of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation which found that Smith, not her employer, had that burden. We agree.

On August 2, 1990, while on company business for her employer Mr. Sweeper Stores, Inc., Smith was involved in an automobile accident. She sought and obtained medical benefits only. About seven years later, her employer, its insurer State Auto Insurance Company, and the servicing agent refused to pay for continuing treatment for Smith’s headaches and hypertension on the basis that such treatment was not related to the August 2, 1990 automobile accident and duly notified her doctors.1 Notice was sent to Smith, Dr. Warren Davis, Dr. Gary Myerson, and to the Board that the right to compensation was being disputed for these reasons: “1. Blood pressure medication is not related to 8-2-90 accident. 2. Current medical treatment and prescriptions are due to pre-existing conditions and are not related to the specific 8-2-90 auto accident.”