Opinion ID: 2639320
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Riederer's testimony is sufficient to rebut the presumption of compensability.

Text: Dr. Riederer's testimony fits seamlessly with the surrounding evidence. Wollaston's non-work-related basketball injurywhich occurred just seven months before his work-related injurywas tremendously destructive. The X-ray report of the basketball injury indicated a complete dislocation at the ankle joint w[ith] the foot at right angles to the tibia. [4] The treating physician, Dr. Catalanello, characterized the basketball injury as being as serious an injury as one could sustain without tearing the ankle open. Dr. Riederer testified that the basketball injury was horrendous. Dr. Catalanello's emergency room report notes that he warned patient that there is no guarantee that he will not experience a permanent dysfunction secondary to this lesion. The owner of Schroeder Cutting and two of his employees testified that Wollaston had still not recovered from the basketball injury when he returned to work over two months later. Further, Wollaston's behavior after his work-related accident tends to confirm Dr. Riederer's diagnosis of a mild sprain. Wollaston did not seek further medical treatment until about a month after visiting Dr. Riederer. It is not surprising Wollaston did not return to Dr. Riederer because Wollaston had moved to Texas. But if his work-related injury had in fact been serious, one would expect him to have seen some physician for treatment sooner than he did. Taking Dr. Riederer's testimony in combination with the evidence of Wollaston's devastating prior injury and his behavior following his work-related injury, the board could reasonably conclude that the employer had rebutted the presumption of compensability either by providing an alternative explanation for Wollaston's disabilityi.e., the basketball injuryor by directly eliminat[ing] any reasonable possibility that Wollaston's work-related injury was a substantial cause of his disability [5] beyond July 7, 1996. [6] The court, however, faults Dr. Riederer's testimony for failing to explicitly opine that the work injury was not a substantial cause of Wollaston's disability. [7] I think the board could permissibly disagree with the accuracy of this characterization of Dr. Riederer's testimony. [8] But in any event, there can be no serious doubt that Dr. Riederer believed Wollaston's work-related injury was probably not the cause of any impairment beyond the estimated one-to-two-week recovery period. [9] Requiring medical experts to mold their opinions to fit legal formulae is unlikely to improve the accuracy of their testimony. Likewise, it is of little significance that Dr. Riederer did not stridently disagree with Dr. Whittemore's diagnosis of a posterior ligament injury or Dr. Whittemore's assessment of permanent impairment when given the opportunity to do so by Schroeder's attorney. If anything, it may have bolstered his credibility before the board. Because the court holds that Dr. Riederer's testimony was insufficient to rebut the presumption of compensability, it does not address whether substantial evidence supported the board's conclusion that Wollaston failed to prove his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. [10] I would hold that the evidence discussed above is sufficient to support the board's ultimate decision as well as its decision that the presumption was rebutted. I would therefore affirm the superior court's affirmance of the board's decision.