Reese v. Home Budget Center

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the principle in Reese applies only if (1) the work accident “aggravated, accelerated, or in in combination with the [preexisting] infirmity produced the disability, and (2) the injury had not manifested itself prior to the time of the accident
• describing the standard for causation in a workers’ compensation claim involving a claimant’s preexisting injury as asking whether the injury would not have occurred but for the accident
• Board is free to choose between conflicting medical expert opinions so long as there is substantial evidence to support the finding.
• “The Board, of course, was free to choose between the conflicting diagnoses of [one physician and another physician] and either opinion would constitute substantial evidence for purposes of appeal.”
• “The ‘but-for’ definition of proximate cause . . . finds equal application . . . between an acknowledged industrial incident and its aftermath . . . . [I]f the accident provides the ‘setting’ or ‘trigger,’ causation is satisfied for purposes of compensability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).