Nowhere does the board say or intimate that the petitioner was not credible or that it disbelieved her testimony. Moreover, the board does not indicate that prior back problems had any bearing on its conclusion regarding the claimed 1993 injury. Indeed, the respondent does not challenge Dr. Hepner's opinion that the petitioner's prior back problems did not relate to her claimed injury. While the board may reconcile conflicting evidence, see id ., or disbelieve unrefuted evidence, see Appeal of Barrington Educ. Accordingly, we remand the issue of legal causation to the board so it can make appropriate factual findings.
Medical causation is a matter properly within the province of medical experts.
The board is entitled to rely on a medical opinion based exclusively on a review of the claimant's medical records if the opinion provides sufficient support for the board's decision. See Appeal of Commercial Union Ins. The board expressly relied on the opinion of Dr. Kleeman in concluding that the petitioner's back injury was not causally related to the 1993 work event. Dr. Kleeman's opinion was based on his assessment that the petitioner did not complain of back pain until January 1994, about seven months after the alleged injury occurred. At the hearing, however, the petitioner testified that she did in fact complain of back pain prior to January 1994.