Susan Parzymieso of our office recently prevailed in a dispute over the claimant’s degree of disability in a concussion case. The claimant relied primarily on her neurologist for the proposition that she remained totally disabled from late February to mid May of this year. She resisted any compromise.

Susan then cross-examined the attending neurologist. The presiding judge, finding that the claimant only had a moderate degree of disability for most of the period in dispute, and only a mild degree of disability for a portion of the period, noted that the doctor on cross-examination conceded that his opinion was largely based upon the claimant’s subjective complaints, without a full reevaluation of her cognitive status. Perhaps most important, Susan brought out the fact that the neurologist did not know that the claimant had contacted another treating doctor on the day following her visit with the neurologist seeking a release to return to work. That doctor had noted a dramatic improvement in the claimant’s subjectively reported symptoms.

It was Susan’s ability to zero in on the weaknesses of the treating neurologist’s presentation and then confront him with information about what the claimant was telling another doctor that convinced the judge that an opinion of total disability for the period in dispute was not genuine.

Congratulations, Susan, for careful presentation, skillful cross-examination, and a good result.

Click here to view on Linkedin