The applicant in this case was a caretaker who alleged a continuous trauma injury. The defendant had concurrent employment with another company which he failed to disclose to his treating physicians. The defendant successfully objected to the admissibility of the treating physician reports as not being substantial medical evidence based on the doctor not being aware of the applicant’s concurrent employment. At the same time, the defendant made sure that the panel QME in the case was aware of the concurrent employment and addressed it in his report. The defendant also made sure that the panel QME reviewed all of the available evidence in the case to ensure that his report was substantial medical evidence.
At time of trial, the defendant solicited testimony from the applicant regarding his concurrent employment. The defendant also solicited testimony from the applicant which contradicted with his deposition testimony, calling his credibility into question. At time of trial, the defendant argued that the PTP reports were not substantial medical evidence.
Following trial, the judge agreed with the defendant’s claim that the treating physician reports were not substantial medical evidence and that the panel QME report was substantial medical evidence. The judge ordered the applicant to take nothing.
Findings, Order, and Opinion on Decision: Click here.