Petitioner’s testimony is insufficient to prove a medical controversy in Order to assign a Medical Panel

The Order in the Quorp matter shows the importance of arguing a lack of medical controversy should Petitioner’s proceed to hearing without clear medical documentation rebutting Respondents’ IME opinion.  The Order also shows that with the right facts, the Judge’s will by-pass the medical panel if possible and issue an Order directly.           

The returned his Order without referring the case to a medical panel at all.  Essentially he determined that Respondents IME opinions as to restrictions, impairment and need for surgery or relatedness of conditions was not rebutted by any medical evidence from the Petitioner.  Judge Newman agreed with Respondents’ argument that the Petitioner’s own statements regarding her medical condition and reason for treatment was not sufficient to create a medical controversy to send the case to a medical panel.  He also determined that evidence submitted at hearing by Respondents in the form of testimony and employment records proved that the Petitioner resigned her employment for reasons unrelated to the work injury.  As such, Judge Newman denied the Petitioner’s request for wage loss, future medical care, and permanent partial disability benefits.  The only thing Respondents were responsible for is 6 weeks of conservative care from the date of MMI until the ATP place the Petitioner at medical stability.

Would you like to know more? Contact Christin Bechmann at cbechmann@pollartmiller.com or 877-259-5693.

From the June 2020 Newsletter

2020-07-08T09:01:17+00:00