Disability Law

Georgia Workers? Compensation Case Update - The Any Evidence Rule Is Alive And Well; In Medical Care Disputes, Judge May Yield To Injured Worker's Authorized Treating Physician For Medical Care Opinions

By Jack E. Clay

On July 30, 2007, the Georgia Court of Appeals decided the case of Bibb County Board of Education v. Bembry. This case involved a workers? compensation appeal of a school teacher in Bibb County Georgia. The Court of Appeals judges discussed the claimant?s medical treatment with several doctors. In this case, the employer and insurance company alleged that the claimant had a significant pre-existing issues. Specifically, the claimant had a herniated disc in her back prior to her fall at work. One of the doctors concluded that the client had returned to her ?pre-injury base line? with ?medical certainty."

The issue of pre-existing medical conditions, especially those involving the back, are prevalent in workers? compensation cases. While Georgia Workers? Compensation law allows claimants to recover even with a pre-existing injury, the employer is only obligated to return the injured worker to their pre-injury base line. This case emphases several important points. First, the Any Evidence Standard is alive and well in Georgia. What this means is that the State Board of Workers? Compensation issues a decision based upon the facts of the case, their particular findings should be conclusive and binding if there is any evidence to substantiate there findings. Of course, this generally applies to the facts and not legal issues that can arise in the case. Second, the Court of Appeals rather clearly spelled out its position regarding pre-existing issues by using terms such as ?pre-injury base line? ?medical certainty?. Third and perhaps more importantly, the Court of Appeals noted that Georgia State Board of Workers? Compensation is entitled to credit the injured worker's Authorized Treating Physician opinion over the opinion of a claimant?s personal physician in resolving conflicting expert medical evidence. This is important because, presumably, the same analysis might apply to allowing an Administrative Law judge to believe the opinion of an authorized treating physician over the opinions of physicians to whom the claimants is sent by the employer/insurer.

Full post as published by Georgia Law Blog on August 09, 2007 (boomark / email).