Order Resolving Respondent's Motion in Limine and Findings of ...

tingling primarily in the S1 distribution, and probable depression. Dr. Vincent opinedthat “nothing” in Clapham’s job history or work duties suggested that his job aggravatedhis back condition. Dr. Vincent further opined that Clapham’s work at Crown Parts wasnot the major contributing cause of his back pain, but rather his pain was caused by acombination of the natural progression of his underlying degenerative disk disease andhis commute. Dr. Vincent further opined that Clapham did not sustain an aggravation ofhis 2002 industrial injury and that he remained at MMI. 64 46 Dr. Vincent testified that he found objective medical findings of multileveldegenerative disk disease, chronic low-back pain, and radicular findings in the lowerextremity consistent with x-ray findings. 65 Dr. Vincent testified that he reviewedClapham’s most recent MRI, compared his findings to the reports from the previousMRIs, and concluded that there were some changes consistent with a naturalprogression of degenerative changes. 66 Dr. Vincent testified:And Mr. Clapham told me – I asked him several times, to get it straight,what at his work was causing his back to be worse, and he repeatedly toldme that he didn’t think it was anything different about Crown Parts thanthe work he had done at Stone and that he could get through that with hismedication and his regimen of treatment.What he told me was that his driving the six and a half hoursbetween Billings and Missoula was, in his opinion, what was aggravatinghis back and what causes it to get worse.And I asked him that in different ways on several occasions, and Ieven repeated it back to him, because obviously that’s the crux of thisissue.I believe the man has a better handle on what makes his backworse than I will ever know reading a job analysis or his medical chart. 67 47 Clapham testified that he never told Dr. Vincent that his commute was the sourceof his back aggravation. Rather, Clapham testified that Dr. Vincent told Clapham thatthe commute was causing his aggravation. 6864 Ex. 1 at 193-206.65 Vincent Dep. 28:3-14.66 Vincent Dep. 30:2-14.67 Vincent Dep. 44:8 – 45:1.Order Resolving Respondent’s Motion in Limine andFindings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order - 14