Opinion ID: 813898
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count 6: Misrepresentations to Dr. Chauhan

Text: Dr. Chauhan viewed a video compilation showing Bagshaw engaging in various activities. His opinion after viewing the video was that Bagshaw misrepresented her “physical capabilities and medical condition during her examinations.” He further testified that he was “surprised at how much she was able to do on the videotape.” - 36 - No. 12-3074 United States v. Bagshaw The evidence supporting this particular count is probably the weakest of the fourteen counts, because much of Dr. Chauhan’s testimony indicated that Bagshaw’s misrepresentations were not material. Dr. Chauhan testified that Bagshaw’s misrepresentations to him were of a low degree and were not material to his treatment because it was focused on alleviating her pain levels. He performed an objective test known as the “Waddell test” to ensure that Bagshaw was not falsifying her levels of pain. He stated that he had no concerns that she was feigning her back pain. Despite her pain, he had encouraged Bagshaw to be active, since it was important for patients suffering from chronic pain to occupy themselves and distract themselves from their pain. He stated that Bagshaw’s back issues did not impose any physical restrictions, and that she could be “as active as she [could] tolerate.” Even after watching the video, he testified that in his opinion Bagshaw was unable to return to “full-time” “remunerative employment.” However, some of Dr. Chauhan’s testimony supports the jury’s finding. He stated that he relied heavily upon Bagshaw’s subjective statements about her pain when treating her. He observed that “pain is a very emotional and personal experience.” He stated that he tended to perform the objective tests to rule out misrepresentation of pain early in the process of treating patients, and he began treating Bagshaw in November, 2002. He did not retain Bagshaw’s Waddell test findings. Although he did not think Bagshaw was capable of “full-time” employment and was concerned with her ability to work on a regular basis, he seemed to leave open the possibility that she could work part-time. David Cattani testified that due to the volume of claims, the Department of Labor was “basically totally reliant” on the medical evidence it received. He further stated that “[w]hat - 37 - No. 12-3074 United States v. Bagshaw [claimants] tell their doctor is very important, too, because that trickles down in the medical opinion as to what they can and cannot do.” Cattani stated that the USPS “work[ed] very hard” at accommodating the disabilities of its workers. He testified that their forms often stated they could “accommodate anything short of bed rest.” Based on these statements, a reasonable juror could have found that Bagshaw’s misrepresentations to Dr. Chauhan were material.