preview

Analysis Of The FBI Case

Decent Essays
I attended a Board ordered deposition of Dr. Miriam Kanter in the above-referenced matter on 08/24/17. The claimant was represented by attorney Tim Welch. As you know, this case is established for injuries to the neck and right shoulder with an average weekly wage of $1,614.34. We are presently litigating the issue of permanency. Your consultant, Dr. Cally, examined and found the claimant to have a permanency rating of 3-B. Dr. Kantor completed a C-4.3 on 05/27/17 and found the claimant to have a permanency rating of “E”. We previously have deposed Dr. Cally and medical testimony will be complete with the testimony of Dr. Kantor. This case is scheduled to come back on calendar on 10/19/17 for the testimony of the claimant on loss of…show more content…
I made it clear to the doctor that I was not involved in the criminal prosecution of this matter and I was not accusing her of any wrong doing. I was simply attempting to elicit facts which would allow us to inform our position with regard to her testimony and her reports. Obviously, the potential for criminal investigation could touch on the doctors credibility if she were personally involved in the fraudulent billing. I think we could argue that if the doctor was guilt of such activities, it would go to her credibility and the weight that should be given to her opinions. I also noticed that there were only two (2) reports from Dr. Kantor in the electronic case folder. One was from 04/20/17 and then her C-4.3 on 05/27/17. On direct examination the doctor testified that she had seen the claimant on 02/11/16. She said she extended some physical therapy at that time. I asked the doctor about that on cross-examination and I told her that report did not appear in the electronic case folder. She said she would fax it to me and I gave her my fax number. When she saw the claimant on 04/20/17, she simply encouraged the claimant to continue with the home exercise program. Her only other involvement in the case was to complete a C-27 and a permanency evaluation. I asked these questions because the Case Law establishes that if a doctor is examining solely for the purposes of providing a opinion on permanency or causal relationship
Get Access