Opinion
11-P-594
12-14-2011
KARDAS'S CASE.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The administrative judge determined that the impartial physician's opinion on causation was reliable and therefore admissible under Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (1994). In light of the evidence of the impartial physician's training and his experience, as well as the fact that he was not the only doctor to reach the same conclusion concerning causation, we cannot say that the administrative judge's determination was an abuse of discretion, which is the standard of review that we must apply. See Canavan's Case, 432 Mass. 304, 312 (2000). In light of this conclusion we need not address the administrative judge's alternative basis for considering the impartial physician's opinion, that the employee was precluded from challenging the scientific reliability of the impartial physician's opinion because the employee failed to raise any objection to the similar opinion put forward by a prior impartial physician in an earlier case concerning the same industrial injury. Cf. G. L. c. 152, § 16 (limiting the preclusive effect of certain determinations made in worker's compensation proceedings pursuant to c. 152). Because there was no error in the admission of the opinion of the impartial physician, the administrative judge was entitled to adopt that opinion. The decision of the reviewing board is affirmed.
So ordered.
By the Court (Graham, Rubin & Wolohojian, JJ.),