Establishing Causation Between Injury and Disability Without Expert Medical Testimony as to Reasonable Probability

Analyses the case, Insurance Company of North America v. Kneten, a worker’s compensation case from the Texas Supreme Court. In Kneten, Kneten suffered a heart attack directly after receiving an electric shock while at work. The doctor testified at trial that Kneten suffered from hardening arteries, but the heart attack “could have” been caused by the electric shock. The claimant bears the burden of proving a causal connect to a reasonably degree of certainly. This can be done through expert testimony, law testimony, or both. The court here held that even if the doctor’s word choice was not strong enough to support a jury’s finding of a causal connection by a reasonable degree of certainty, it would be sufficient with the combination of expert testimony and the lay testimony establishing the temporal proximity between the shock and the heart attack. The author, disfavoring the “belt-and-bootstraps” approach in the instant case, favors the concurring opinion of Justice Greenhill, who would have found sufficient evidence on the basis of lay testimony alone, regardless of the doctor’s testimony.