Western Bonded Products v. Industrial Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that expert medical opinion is required to demonstrate a causal relationship between the industrial injury and claimant’s condition where the causal relationship is not readily apparent to a layperson
• expert testimony required in workers’ 25 compensation cases where the result of the industrial accident is not apparent
• unless industrial accident causes injuries that are obvious to a layman, expert medical evidence is required to establish a causal relationship between accident and its alleged consequences
• “It has long 13 been the law of this jurisdiction that where the result of an accident is not clearly apparent 14 to a layman, the causal connection must be determined by expert medical testimony”
• “It has 6 long been the law of this jurisdiction that where the result of an accident is not clearly 7 apparent to a layman, the causal connection must be determined by expert medical 8 testimony”
• “A lay person does not possess the knowledge necessary to make an accurate diagnosis or to describe a condition’s etiology. Even a logical interpretation of events surrounding the . . . incident . . . , when made by a layman, is no more than speculation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).