A employee alleged she was injured by exposure to an unidentified chemical substance at her workplace, claiming she smelled fumes from a heating system. Her treating physician supported the claim, and even the Independent Medical Examiner gave a causal relationship opinion.
On paper, the deck looked stacked. But H&W’s John Land focused the case on what the medical evidence actually proved, not what it claimed.
On cross-examination, the treating physician admitted her opinion rested entirely on what the claimant told her. She had no evidence of any actual exposure to chemicals, mold, or asbestos. The IME doctor, despite finding causal relationship, conceded there was not enough data to reach a conclusion on the lungs, and his only diagnosis was “building related symptoms.”
The Law Judge disallowed the claim, finding the record lacked proof of both injury and causation. A smell and a sympathetic doctor are not the same as a diagnosed work injury.
When causation rests on assumptions rather than evidence, the right cross-examination can dismantle a claim that looked like a sure thing.
Congratulations to John on a well-earned win!
Click here to view in Linkedin.
Â
