- Causation (stroke)
- Medical opinion (stroke)
- Evidence (weight) (medical report)
- Stroke (ischemic)
The worker sought entitlement for a stroke that occurred on May 26, 2019. The worker claimed that his stroke was caused by, and significantly contributed to by, his need to work with his neck in an awkward position for a substantial length of time while teaching a course. The Panel had the opportunity to consider the findings made in their earlier interim decision, the opinion provided from the medical assessor as well as the other available medical evidence, and the submissions received.
The appeal was denied.The balance of the expert medical opinion that was available to the Panel heavily weighed in opposition to the claim being made by the worker. The Panel found there was no reliable medical opinion within the appeal record that could be relied upon in order to conclude that the worker's workplace postures made a significant contribution to the occurrence of his stroke, on a balance of probabilities.The Panel appreciated that the worker was also a doctor, and had possession of knowledge of the human body that a lay person who is not medically qualified would not have. The worker was, however, also an interested party in this appeal and was legally not capable of providing disinterested evidence that the Panel could consider as objective expert opinion evidence in this appeal. However, the worker's first-hand evidence regarding his workplace activities and the events surrounding the occurrence of his stroke were taken into consideration.