Dr. Ross's medical-legal report contained multiple inaccuracies in Applicant's medical history.
Favours Defendant prevailed
These inaccuracies undermined the reliability of Dr. Ross's opinion, leading the WCJ to reject it as substantial medical evidence.
From the decision · page 4In the present matter, the initial report by Dr. Ross dated July 16, 2020, contained incorrect
information as to Applicant's medical history. The report states that Applicant had undergone a
left hip replacement, that his sister suffered short-term memory issues. (Joint Exhibit BB, page 9).
He also reported that Applicant's father passed away from complications of dementia and a heart
attack (Exhibit BB, pages 9, 11). Applicant is also noted as having denied being seen by a
psychiatrist. (Joint Exhibit BB, page 11).
Applicant testified at trial that he never had left hip surgery, has no sister, and his father died of pneumonia, contradicting Dr. Ross's report.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Applicant's credible testimony contradicted the inaccurate history in Dr. Ross's report, supporting rejection of that report.
From the decision · page 4At trial Applicant testified that he has never undergone any surgery to his left hip or made
any complaints of hip problems. Testimony was also taken that he does not have a sister and that
his father passed away from pneumonia unrelated to a heart attack or dementia.
The parties were ordered to obtain supplemental reports to correct errors in Dr. Ross's initial report, but the supplemental report did not adequately address the inaccuracies.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Failure to adequately correct errors in the supplemental report further undermined Dr. Ross's opinion as substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 4Dr. Ross was deposed after his initial report on January 21, 2021, and a supplemental report
as obtained dated May 24, 2022. While the deposition brings to light the errors contained in the
reporting regarding Applicant's medical history, the deposition testimony and subsequent report
do not explain the reason for the discrepancy or point to where the error originated from. (Exhibit
CC, page 23 line 10, page 25 line 12, page 32 line 1).
The report of Dr. Saghafi was found to constitute substantial medical evidence supporting industrial causation of deep vein thrombosis.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The WCJ relied on Dr. Saghafi's report over Dr. Ross's to find industrial injury causation.
From the decision · page 5Having found the AME reporting not to be substantial medical evidence and having the
reporting of Dr. Saghafi which was found to be such, the undersigned believed that a finding based