Florida IME MD Need Not be Board-Certified Pulmonologist to Testify as to Causation of Lung Condition
Testimony by the employer’s independent medical examiner, in which the physician opined that the major contributing cause of claimant’s need for treatment for his respiratory condition was his 17-year history of cigarette smoking — and not his 11-day exposure to dust and debris while working for employer — did not depend upon a showing by the employer that the physician was a board-certified internist or pulmonologist, held a Florida appellate court [Blanco v. Creative Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 15637 (1st DCA, Oct. 17, 2019)]. The JCC appropriately received the physician as an expert since the physician was board-certified in occupational medicine, had a PhD in toxicology, and had extensive experience in determining the cause of exposure injuries such as that claimed by the claimant.
17 Years Smoking vs. 11 Days of Exposure to Dust
Claimant had smoked cigarettes for 17 years before going to work for the employer. Claimant’s accounts for the extent of his smoking varied, from half a pack per day to three packs per day. Prior to the claimant’s employment with the employer, his treating physician diagnosed his condition as probable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
In late November 2017, claimant began working for the employer, setting up booths at a trade show. The job required the claimant to move furniture, build walls and booths, paid, and hang signs. According to the claimant, other workers were milling and/or grinding concrete nearby and the overall level of dust was considerable. After 11 days of work, claimant developed severe breathing problems, was treated at a nearby hospital, and was diagnosed with COPD and exacerbation of unspecified asthma.
JCC’s Decision
Claimant filed a workers’ compensation claim, which the employer denied. The JCC, giving weight to the testimony of the employer’s IME, that the major contributing cause of claimant’s need for treatment for his respiratory condition was his history of cigarette smoking, and not the 11-day exposure to dust and debris while working for employer, found that the claimant had failed to meet his burden of proof that he suffered from an accident from exposure in the course and scope of his employment.
IME’s Qualifications
On appeal, the claimant challenged, among other things, the admission of the employer’s IME testimony. Claimant contended the testimony was not admissible because the physician was not a pulmonologist. The appellate court said the claimant’s argument incorrectly presumed that only a pulmonologist was qualified to testify on the disputed issue of causation. The Court said the claimant had ignored the fact that the IME physician was a board-certified occupational medicine specialist with extensive experience in exposure cases leading to pulmonary problems. The physician was clearly qualified to give his opinion. The court added that cases cited by the claimant to exclude the IME’s opinion were inapplicable.