 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Merchant v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board9/1/2000
Walczak's testimony demonstrates that the most that she was willing to say was that the diabetes insipidus "could be" or "probably" was related to the work incident. TSL contends that at no point in her entire testimony did she give a clear and definite opinion that the condition was causally related to the work injury. See Andracki v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Allied Eastern States), 508 A.2d 624 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (medical testimony is unequivocal and sufficient if the expert testifies that in her professional opinion she believes the fact exists.)
Having reviewed Dr. Walczak's testimony in its entirety, we must agree with the Board that it is equivocal as to causation. Although she stated that it is well known that head injuries can cause diabetes insipidus, she never really stated why she believed that this particular patient developed that condition as a result of his electrocution. In addition, even though an expert need not express her opinion in the precise terms used to articulate a legal standard, Dr. Walczak's testimony was simply insufficient to unequivocally establish causation between the work injury and the diabetes insipidus.
IV.
Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the Board's order providing that Claimant receive total temporary disability benefits as of September 8, 1995 and remand to the Board to remand to the WCJ for a determination as to when the West Virginia payments ceased. To reiterate, if the WCJ is unable to determine from TSL's Exhibits Nos. 6 and 7 when the West Virginia payments ceased, then he is directed to take evidence on that narrow issue. Once a date is determined, we direct that an order be issued providing that Claimant shall receive temporary total disability benefits in Pennsylvania subsequent to that date. Further, we affirm that portion of the Board's order providing that Claimant failed to prove by unequivocal medical testimony that his diabetes insipidus was work-related.
JESS S. JIULIANTE, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of September , 2000, that portion of the December 2, 1999 order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board providing that Claimant receive total temporary disability benefits as of September 8, 1995 is hereby vacated and this matter is remanded for a determination and, if necessary, an evidentiary hearing limited to the issue of determining the date West Virginia workers' compensation payments ceased. Further, that portion of the Board's order providing that Claimant failed to prove by unequivocal medical testimony that his diabetes insipidus was work-related, is affirmed.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
JESS S. JIULIANTE, Senior Judge
DISSENTING OPINION
I concur in part and respectfully dissent in part to the majority's opinion. I concur that we should remand to the Board to remand to the WCJ for a determination as to when the West Virginia payments ceased. However, I dissent from the majority's affirmance of the portion of the Board's order providing that Claimant failed to prove by unequivocal medical testimony that his diabetes insipidus was work-related.
The WCJ credited Dr. Walczak's testimony and found that Claimant's diabetes insipidus resulted from Claimant's electrocution at work. The Board and the majority found that Dr. Walczak's testimony was equivocal because she stated "it is well known that head injuries can cause diabetes insipidus" and that the trauma Claimant received during the electrocution "could well be" the cause of the diabetes insipidus and that the trauma "probably" caused Claimant's condition.
Where there is no obvious causal connection between an
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|