One of the best bases for appeal is often the equivocal nature of a doctor’s testimony. However, it is important to distinguish between an opinion that is truly equivocal and one that merely lacks credibility. Clearly, no attorney would seek to appeal a credibility determination. Nonetheless, the appellate courts often dismiss appeals as being veiled attempts at challenging the credibility determinations of the finder of fact.
Last month, the Commonwealth Court addressed an issue that pervades every workers’ compensation case: What constitutes equivocal, expert medical testimony? In addressing that issue, the court reversed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, which found a claimant’s doctor to be equivocal. The board had reversed the order of the workers’ compensation judge granting the claim petition in the first instance.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
