Proof: Conflicting Evidence: Vocational

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.