Wendy Hauck of our firm recently prevailed in a case by successfully arguing against the conclusions of a treating doctor alone rather than taking the risk of recommending that our client obtain an evaluation by a consulting physician in rebuttal.

The injured worker sustained a work injury and afterwards underwent surgical repair of a pectoralis tendon. The treating doctor had submitted a report to the Workers’ Compensation Board indicating that the worker had a 20% schedule loss of use. Wendy spotted the faulty analysis of the treating doctor and argued that based on his report, there should be no finding of permanency. The treating doctor indicated in his report that the injured worker had no significant range of motion deficits. He also opined, however, that the claimant’s injury was analogous to a distal biceps rupture for which permanency guidelines of the Workers’ Compensation Board allow a 20% schedule loss of use. Using recent case law, Wendy argued that the treating doctor should have analyzed range of motion deficits and other relevant factors rather than comparing the claimant’s injury to a completely separate one which he did not sustain. The presiding judge was persuaded by Wendy’s argument and closed the case, finding no schedule loss of use.

Wendy’s careful analysis of the treating doctor’s opinion led her to the strategy of discrediting that opinion rather than taking the risk of having a consulting doctor perhaps find a permanent injury some other way, proving that in the defense of workers compensation claims, less is sometimes more.

Click here to view in Linkedin.