Proof: Conflicting Evidence: Vocational

Kellegher v. MACO Workers' Compensation Trust [08/12/15] 2015 MTWCC 16 Although approved job analyses existed, the Court concluded that Petitioner did not have a reasonable prospect of performing any of those jobs.  The Court gave no weight to approvals from an IME physician who approved a job analysis in spite of knowing that Petitioner had attempted and failed to successfully perform in that position.  The Court further gave no weight to testimony from a neuropsychologist who opined that Petitioner could perform those jobs based on his “general understanding” of the job positions, but without review of any job analyses.

Drivdahl v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. [11/16/12] 2012 MTWCC 43 The Court assessed the credibility of Petitioner and Petitioner’s son, both of whom testified.  However, the Court was unable to fully explore the bases for the opinions of two doctors and a physical therapist as only their reports and/or medical records were entered into evidence.  While the treating physician approved several job analyses, his opinion differed significantly from the other experts in the case and differed from the live testimony.  Since the Court had no insight into why this doctor’s opinion differed, the Court did not give the opinion as much weight.