Opinion ID: 2551330
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Overexposure to radio frequency radiation

Text: AT & T first claims that the board's finding that Orchitt was overexposed to radio frequency radiation is not supported by substantial evidence because the board rejected the testimony of the board's engineering expert and AT & T's radiation expert and relied instead on the lay testimony of Orchitt and his coworker, as well as its own common sense. AT & T asserts that Dr. Ziskin, a medical doctor who also calculated Orchitt's exposure, retracted his initial opinion that Orchitt had been overexposed. It argues that because the issue of overexposure to radio frequency radiation is highly technical, any finding that Orchitt was overexposed must be supported by expert scientific testimony. It alleges that only Kimberly Kantner and Dr. Guy had adequate expertise to properly evaluate the level of Orchitt's exposure. In some workers' compensation cases expert medical testimony is necessary to demonstrate a relationship between the claimant's employment and his disability. [17] Whether expert testimony is necessary depends on the probative value of the available lay evidence and the complexity of the medical facts involved. [18] AT & T relies on Commercial Union Cos. v. Smallwood in arguing that the board erred in its finding of overexposure. But the board based its finding that Orchitt was overexposed to radiation not just on lay testimony and common sense; it also relied on Dr. Ziskin's expert opinion. Although AT & T contends that Dr. Ziskin retracted his opinion, the record does not support this assertion. In his April 16, 1999 letter, he did not, as AT & T argues, say that it was unlikely that Orchitt sustained any significant overexposure. This letter contains no reference at all to exposure level. Nor did Dr. Ziskin change his mind in his deposition. Dr. Ziskin there testified that he still had concerns about whether Dr. Guy's models adequately accounted for specular reflection in determining how quickly the radiation would dissipate once it left the waveguide. AT & T points to the following excerpts from Dr. Ziskin's deposition testimony to support its argument: Q: Okay. All right. You haven't done any calculations or analysis yourself, have you, to the degree Dr. Guy has? A: About what? I mean, I do make calculations of radiation exposures and so on from antennas and things like that. Q: No. I mean in this case, Doctor. I'm sorry. A: Oh, in this particular case? Q: Yeah. A: The calculations that I made were very  Q: Rough? A:  limited. I took the total power that was coming through the waveguide, and I divided it by the area to come up with what was the average power density within the waveguide, which would be at the starting point. Q: Right. And it would be  it would lose power as it moved away, right? A: Well, within the waveguide, for the most part, the power will stay the same. Q: Within the waveguide, but once it  A: Within the waveguide. But once it leaves the waveguide, it gets attenuated, yeah. It depends upon the nature of the way it leaves how rapidly it attenuates. Q: Okay. A: And most of the modeling was done on the idea of the inverse square law; but with specular reflection, that would not necessarily be true. Q: And specular reflection you deal with in ultrasound, right? A: That's correct. . . . . Q:. . . . Now, as to the differences between the sort[] of doctor[] that you are as compared to Dr. Guy, can you explain the differences for  so that we can understand the kind of testimonies that we can expect that you would be able to testify to accurately as opposed to the type of testimony Dr. Guy would be able to testify to accurately? A: Well, there is a great deal of overlap. However, I'll  I think he would defer to me when it comes to medical judgment and biology. And unless there was something very specific, I will always defer to him when it comes to the physical engineering side of things. And I think the same thing is true with  it's possible that, because he has done some biological research, that there could be something that I would not be correct on and he would maybe correct me when it comes to even biology or even medicine, but in general, he would defer to my opinion when it comes to medical aspects. We do not believe that Dr. Ziskin's testimony that he would defer to Dr. Guy's opinions with respect to physical engineering unless there was something very specific indicates that he retracted or otherwise abandoned his opinion that Orchitt was overexposed. Dr. Ziskin identified the specific issue of specular reflection as an area of possible disagreement with Dr. Guy. In his deposition, Dr. Ziskin reiterated his belief that Dr. Guy's model had not taken specular reflection into account. A: Where I have a question is in the initial assumptions of what was the exposure ahead of time, what went into that model. And that's why I said I wanted to look to see what was the incident power density that he felt was started to expose the head with. And here is where I have a little different point of view. It has to do with reflections off of the flange. Because I have a background in ultrasound for diagnosis where we look at reflections, that's the whole diagnosis concerned with, I'm aware that you can have pretty large reflections off of structures that are relatively strong compared to just the scatter and the back scatter that you would have otherwise. And see, I haven't seen the actual setup. But it would be possible that if the two flanges that had been  that the waveguide segments that had been separated had overlapped and there was strong reflections coming off of one of the flanges, that that reflection could actually be quite high and might not be measured in the model  the modeling that Dr. Guy had used. That's sort of a rather important point because that would establish what that initial maximum exposure would be. . . . . Q: And Dr. Guy did take that into account in the third report. Do you see that? A: Well, looking at it, though, it's not clear to me whether or not it actually addressed what I call specular reflections, the type of reflections I'm talking about. It looked more of the defraction type of reflection, which is certainly true, but I don't know whether or not the model actually takes into account the specular reflections. . . . . A: The only thing, I'm not sure whether that model takes into account specular reflections or not. I just don't know for sure. I would have to ask Dr. Guy. Dr. Ziskin's report and testimony provide substantial scientific evidence to support the board's finding. AT & T does not argue that Dr. Ziskin was not qualified to give an opinion about overexposure. Moreover, the board was free to credit the testimony of Dr. Ziskin over that of Dr. Guy and Kimberly Kantner. [I]f the Board is faced with two or more conflicting medical opinions  each of which constitutes substantial evidence  and elects to rely upon one opinion rather than the other, we will affirm the Board's decision. [19] This is particularly so if the board believed that, based on Orchitt's description of the separation between the segments of the waveguide and his distance from the flange, specular reflection had occurred, and if it found that Dr. Ziskin's opinion more accurately matched how the accident happened than Dr. Guy's. We therefore find no merit in AT & T's contention that the board's finding was not supported by adequate scientific evidence. Furthermore, in Beauchamp v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., we held that the board could permissibly combine uncontradicted lay testimony with uncertain medical testimony to support a conclusion that a worker's injury was work related. [20] Here, the board did not err in relying on the lay testimony of Orchitt's coworkers in combination with the medical evidence in determining that Orchitt had suffered a work-related injury.