Opinion ID: 4107550
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Misunderstanding of events.

Text: When a physician’s opinion is based on a history that is “substantially inaccurate or largely incomplete,” that opinion “cannot constitute substantial evidence.” Cepero v. Fabricated Metals Corp., 132 S.W.3d 839, 842 (Ky. 2004). Dr. Roseman’s opinion that Eddie’s death was not work-related is based, in large part, on his conclusion that Eddie’s activity before his death required only minimal non-strenuous exertion. Dr. Roseman reached this conclusion based on his belief that Eddie walked up and down a hill several times and was able to converse in a normal tone after doing so. However, as noted above, Eddie did not “Walk” up and down a hill, he climbed up and down a steep embankment and climbed under the truck several times to position and reposition the tow chain. Bailey, the only person to testify regarding the amount of exertion required, stated that the activity was strenuous - testimony that Dr. Roseman largely ignored. As to Eddie’s speech pattern, Dr. Roseman is correct that Bailey testified that Eddie spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, according to the METs chart included in Dr. Roseman’s report, tone of voice is not the determinative factor regarding the intensity level of activity. Light intensity activity is marked by the ability “to talk and / or sing; moderate intensity activity is marked by the ability “to talk but not sing”; and vigorous /hard intensity activity is marked by “difficulty talking.” These categories are indicative of whether a person is out of breath rather than his tone of voice. Thus, Bailey’s testimony that Eddie was “winded” after climbing up and down 13 the embankment is indicative of moderate to vigorous activity, not the minimal exertion cited by Dr. Roseman. Because this foundational leg of Dr. Roseman’s opinion is substantially inaccurate and largely incomplete, his report is not substantive evidence.