While the recent opinions coming from the appellate courts have generally been favorable to the defense bar, a Commonwealth Court case just posted Wednesday, Pennsylvania Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund (PUEGF) v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Bonner and Fitzgerald), puts that trend on hold. In PUEGF, the court addressed a claimant’s burden of proof in a claim petition. Specifically, it had to decide whether the claimant’s medical expert’s speculative testimony regarding the injured worker’s ability to return to work six weeks after his last evaluation thwarted a claim for ongoing disability.
Occasionally, when litigating a claim petition for compensation benefits, the claimant must select as his medical expert a physician who is by no means skilled at rendering expert testimony. Despite one’s best efforts to prepare a doctor who is new to the world of trial testimony, sometimes statements made by a treating doctor undermine the burden of proof. Even one offhand comment can sometimes render expert testimony equivocal, making it impossible to meet one’s burden of proof.
This content has been archived.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]
