Per Curiam.
Both here and below, claimant devotes his entire argument to establishing a causal relationship between his current condition and his industrial injury. This point, however, is not in dispute. The appellate court upheld the denial of compensation, not for lack of causal relationship, but because there was no evidence that the condition was work-prohibitive.
Claimant ignores the fact that neither Dr. Rosen nor Dr. Steurer in their reports...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
