Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

North Carolina: Cautious Medical Testimony Does Not Amount to Mere Speculation

August 19, 2016 (1 min read)

Where the former employee’s medical expert candidly allowed that he could not offer a medical opinion to a degree of absolute certainty that removed all speculation, but that he could say, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the former employee had experienced a new injury that materially aggravated the former employee’s prior back condition, his testimony was not mere speculation and the Industrial Commission did not err in relying in part on that expert testimony in awarding workers’ compensation benefits to the employee.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.

See Harris v. Southern Commercial Glass, 2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 863 (Aug. 16, 2016)

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 130.06.

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law