DOL Rules the Claimant's Expert Fails to Provide Credible Evidence

The Vermont Department of Labor has affirmed its prior holdings that a claimant must provide a persuasive medical opinion to meet its burden of proof on medical causation.  Meau v. The Howard Center, Op. No. 1-14WC (January 24, 2014). 

The Department's opinion held that an expert, "merely stating a conclusion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty does not make it so." Meau v. The Howard Center, Op. No. 1-14WC (January 24, 2014), citing Seymour v. Genesis Health Care Corp., Op. No. 53-08WC (December 29, 2008). Even if the analysis of the Defendant's expert has weaknesses, the claimant's expert must still provide an opinion strong enough on its own to persuade the Commissioner.  Specifically, when a medical provider claims medical literature supports the opinion proffered, there must be sufficient specificity for the finder of fact to evaluate the strength of the assertion.  See, Meau v. The Howard Center, Op. No. 1-14WC (January 24, 2014).

Burden of Proof for Firefighters, Rescue and Ambulance Workers

Effective July 1, 2013 firefighters, rescue and ambulance workers who suffer an infectious disease or lung disease will be presumed to have acquired the disease from their employment.  Entitled "An act relating to workers’ compensation for firefighters and rescue or ambulance workers" the bill creates a presumption that a firefighter or rescue or ambulance worker with lung disease or an infectious disease has acquired the disease as a result of his or her employment.  The presumption does not apply if a vaccine was refused by worker who later contacts the infectious disease. Also, the presumption of compensability shall not apply to a worker who has used tobacco product within 10 years of the date of diagnosis.

The Bill that passed out of the Vermont Legislature may be found here:
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/bills/Passed/S-085.pdf