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).

Department Reiterates Worsening of Preexsting Condition Compensable

Where a pre-existing condition is worsened by any degree because of a work injury or condition of work, resulting medical treatment is compensable.  Goodwin v. AmeriGas Propone, Op. No. 21-13WC (September 10, 2013). When considering a progressively degenerative disease, where "the disease, if left to itself, and apart from any  injury, would, in time, have inevitably caused a complete disability," the causation test becomes whether, due to a work injury or the work environment, "the disability came upon the claimant earlier than otherwise would have occurred." Stannard v. Stannard, 2003 VT 52 ¶11 (May 29, 2003), citing Jackson v. True Temper Corp., 151 Vt. 592, 596 (1989) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

 

The Department of Labor decision can be found here:

http://www.labor.vt.gov/portals/0/WC/GoodwinDecision.pdf