Medical reports offered by the claimant to corroborate the testimony of her medical expert were hearsay and were properly excluded from evidence in a termination petition.

The claimant sustained a work-related low back injury from a motor vehicle accident she was involved in while travelling for work as a pharmaceutical sales representative. The employer accepted the injury and issued a Notice of Compensation Payable. Later, the employer filed a termination petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from her work injury.

In support of its petition, the employer presented testimony from a medical expert, who testified that the claimant was fully recovered from her work injury and noted that there was a “gap” in treatment from October 2014 until March 2016. The claimant also presented testimony from a medical expert. During that expert’s deposition, the employer raised hearsay objections to the opinions of two other treating providers, which were sustained by the judge. The judge granted the termination petition, which the claimant appealed. The judge’s decision was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board.

On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that the medical opinions of the non-deposed physicians were admissible hearsay as they were offered to corroborate the medical opinion of her expert. She also argued that the testimony offered by the employer’s medical expert was not competent since it relied on a mistaken fact, which was that the claimant had a year-and-a-half gap in medical treatment.

The Commonwealth Court rejected the claimant’s arguments and dismissed the appeal, holding that hearsay medical reports do not constitute substantial evidence and cannot support an independent finding of a workers’ compensation judge, even if the hearsay evidence is not subject to objection. The court further noted that the use of hearsay evidence is limited to cases where there is corroborating evidence and no objection on the record. In this case, the employer properly raised objections to the submission of the evidence and, therefore, the opinions of the medical providers were inadmissible hearsay. The court further rejected the claimant’s argument that the opinion given by the employer’s medical expert was incompetent because it was based on the mistaken fact that there was a gap in treatment of a year and a half. The evidence showed that for that period, the claimant performed at-home exercises and took medications, but the employer’s expert testified that this did not qualify as treatment because the claimant did not actively consult with a medical provider and the judge had accepted the testimony as credible.

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2020 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}