A claimant with an established right shoulder injury at Gates Volunteer Ambulance sought to expand his claim to include a consequential right elbow condition. His treating PA backed the theory in writing, and a physician from the same office testified to support it. On paper, the claimant had two providers in his corner.
H&W’s Wendy Hauck dismantled that lineup piece by piece.
On cross-examination, the testifying physician conceded he had never personally evaluated the claimant. The PA’s reports offered a conclusion but no credible explanation of how a right shoulder injury actually produced right elbow tendinitis and lateral epicondylitis. Meanwhile, the IME doctor laid out a far more persuasive picture: after the original injury, the claimant had moved on to full-time work elsewhere doing heavy lifting, pushing, pulling, and repetitive activities, and only began complaining about his elbow months into that new job.
The Law Judge disallowed the right elbow as consequential, finding the claimant’s providers failed to credibly connect the dots. The claimant appealed. On April 29, 2026, the Board Panel affirmed, holding that the opinions of the claimant’s provider were insufficient to demonstrate a causal nexus.
A consequential injury is not established by labeling it consequential. There must be a real medical bridge between the original injury and the new condition, and when that bridge is missing, the right cross-examination is what exposes it.
Congratulations to Wendy Hauck on a well-earned win that held up all the way through Board Panel review!
Click here to view in Linkedin.
Â
