A workers’ compensation medical report was insufficient to establish a direct causal link between an accident and an alleged concussion and subsequent stroke, precluded from admission by a federal court in a personal injury case.

Jon L. Gelman

The case, Robert Hibbert v. Flavors C Inc., revolves around a personal injury claim following a collision between two tractor-trailers. On Nov. 10, 2020, while operating a truck on behalf of his employer, Robert Hibbert was rear-ended by another tractor-trailer. The incident led to significant health issues for Hibbert, including symptoms resembling those he exhibited following a stroke in 2013.

Hibbert sought to establish that the accident resulted in a concussion and subsequently triggered a stroke. The case involves various expert testimonies regarding Hibbert’s medical condition post-accident.

Workers’ compensation context

The involvement of workers’ compensation in this case is crucial. Hibbert’s workers’ compensation carrier retained an independent medical examiner, Dr. James A. Charles, to evaluate his condition. The role of workers’ compensation here is to determine whether Hibbert’s injuries are compensable under workers’ compensation laws, which typically cover injuries sustained in the course of employment.

Failure to meet Daubert standard

• Nature of injury:
  • Hibbert claimed that the collision caused a concussion, which in turn triggered a stroke. The argument hinges on proving a direct link between the accident and the stroke through credible medical testimony.
• Conflicting medical evaluations:
  • Dr. John E. Robinton (treating physician) suggested a possible concussion due to the accident.
  • Dr. James A. Charles (workers’ compensation carrier’s examiner) denied that a concussion occurred, attributing symptoms to cerebrovascular disease instead.
  • Dr. William B. Head Jr. (defendant’s expert) found no psychiatric or neurological condition resulting from the accident.
• Expert testimonies and Daubert standard:
  • The court’s decision to admit expert testimony was guided by the Daubert standard, which assesses the relevance and reliability of the testimony. The court granted the defendant’s motion to preclude expert testimony that Hibbert’s injuries were caused by the accident, reflecting the stringent application of the standard.
• Implications for workers’ compensation:
  • If the accident is not proven to directly cause Hibbert’s injuries, workers’ compensation will not cover the claims. The denial of Robinton’s testimony weakened Hibbert’s position, impacting his ability to receive compensation for medical expenses and lost wages related to the incident.
• Court’s rationale:
  • The court found that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish a direct causal link between the accident and the alleged concussion and subsequent stroke. The decision underscores the importance of robust and credible medical testimony in workers’ compensation cases.

Conclusion

The Hibbert case highlights the complexities involved in workers’ compensation claims, particularly the need for concrete medical evidence linking the injury to the workplace accident. The court’s reliance on the Daubert standard to evaluate expert testimonies plays a crucial role in determining the outcome of such cases.

For workers’ compensation to be awarded, the evidence must unequivocally demonstrate that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, a threshold that Hibbert’s case failed to meet due to conflicting medical opinions.

Claimants' attorney Jon L. Gelman is the author of "New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Law" and co-author of the national treatise "Modern Workers’ Compensation Law." He is based in Wayne, New Jersey. This blog post is republished with permission.