Treating physician may testify as expert on causation of injury

Law Reporter, Apr 2003

Treating physician may testify as expert on causation of injury.

Brown-Forman Corp. v. Upchurch, S.W.3d -, Nos.

2002-CA-000749-WC, 2002-CA-001090-WC, 2002

WL 31876312 (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 27,2002).

A Kentucky appellate court held that a physician's observations, tests, and treatment of an individual are sufficient to form a basis for an opinion on causation of the person's injury and need not be supported by peerreviewed scholarship.

Here, Upchurch, a production worker, experienced considerable pain in her neck, hands, and arms. She consulted Gupta, a physician who diagnosed her condition as a type of arthritis related to her repetitive motion work. Upchurch filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, and Gupta testified that he believed her injury was work related. An administrative law judge awarded Upchurch benefits, and the workers' comp appeal board upheld the award. Defendant appealed, arguing that Gupta had no special expertise in epidemiology, and that his theory of causation had not been tested.

Affirming, the appellate court observed that claimant's physicians were unable to cite any medical articles subject to peer review to support their opinions that claimant's condition was related to her work. The requirement that claimants provide testimony generally accepted in the scientific community, however, is intended to help courts interpret novel scientific theories and is not necessarily required in the workers' comp context to determine a link between an employee's job and a subsequent injury, the court said. To obtain benefits, a worker must simply show that the medical evidence is based on "objective medical findings."

In a case like this, it is appropriate for a fact finder to give substantial weight to the testimony of a physician who has observed, tested, and treated the claimant and accordingly has arrived at an opinion as to the cause of a condition based on those observations and the patient's history. Peer-reviewed material or published studies as to causation are not necessary components to qualify the reliability of a medical opinion derived from the history of direct treatment and diagnosis of a patient, the court concluded.

Claimant's Counsel

Christopher P. Evensen, Louisville, Ky.