Opinion ID: 2634585
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: dr young's expert medical opinion presents unchallenged competent evidence to which the claimant's failed to interpose a sustainable objection

Text: ¶ 5 The trial tribunal correctly considered Dr. Young's expert opinion. There was neither a sustainable objection interposed to its admission nor to the probative value of his expert opinion about the decedent's cause of death. Although the law authorized claimant to raise three objections to Dr. Young's medical reports, she most likely could not have had any of them sustained. Moreover, since claimant interposed no valid challenge to the employer's expert medical opinion, she waived her opportunity to do so. It is impermissible for this court to entertain objections waived by counsel's silence. [5] ¶ 6 Firstly, claimant could have challenged the competency of Dr. Young's expert opinion. [6] Secondly, claimant could have objected that Dr. Young's opinion was based on the assumption of flawed or incomplete facts. Though claimant did not challenge Dr. Young's opinion on misassumed grounds or inadequate facts, had that objection been made, it should have been overruled. The record clearly demonstrates Dr. Young's opinion is rested on a complete history containing all the critical medical information needed. [7] ¶ 7 Lastly, claimant did challenge the probative value of Dr. Young's affidavit, [8] and the judge noted her objection, but did not make a ruling at any time before issuing the order denying compensation. Claimant's objection to the probative value of Dr. Young's opinion is not sustainable. Claimant, who as the challenging party below bears here the burden of persuasion, failed to demonstrate the assailed evidence was not legally sufficient to support Dr. Young's opinion on causation. [9] More importantly, an objection to a medical report must be made in specific terms. [10] In response to the trial judge's query, claimant uttered for the record nothing more than the four words [j]ust to probative value. Claimant hence failed to meet the burden of her challenge (to the reports by Dr. Young) with sufficient specificity. Since claimant raised no valid objection to the two reports, there can be no doubt it was proper for the trial judge to consider them as evidence supportive of the findings the trial tribunal made. A ruling consistent with Dr. Young's expert medical opinion satisfies the law's requirement for competent evidence.