Applicant developed symptoms immediately after taking prescribed preventive medications following the admitted needle stick injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This temporal relationship supported the primary treating physician's opinion that the medication contributed to the development of ITP, favoring the applicant's claim.
From the decision · page 8The primary treating physician's conclusion was based on several factors: the applicant
developed negative reactions and symptoms immediately after taking the prescribed medications;
he continued to complain of fatigue, brain fog, and blurred vision with floaters from the time he
began the medication until May 2019, when the symptoms worsened; there was no intervening
cause between the needlestick and the diagnosis of ITP; and the physician found an article [ ].
Therefore, the primary treating physician concluded, with reasonable medical probability, that the
needlestick and the prescribed medication were 80% likely to be the cause of the applicant's
development of ITP.
No intervening cause was found between the needle stick injury, medication, and diagnosis of ITP.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Absence of other causes strengthened the causal link between the industrial injury and the ITP, supporting the applicant's burden of proof.
From the decision · page 8The primary treating physician's conclusion was based on several factors: the applicant
developed negative reactions and symptoms immediately after taking the prescribed medications;
he continued to complain of fatigue, brain fog, and blurred vision with floaters from the time he
began the medication until May 2019, when the symptoms worsened; there was no intervening
cause between the needlestick and the diagnosis of ITP; and the physician found an article [ ].
Therefore, the primary treating physician concluded, with reasonable medical probability, that the
needlestick and the prescribed medication were 80% likely to be the cause of the applicant's
development of ITP.
The primary treating physician's opinion was found better reasoned and more persuasive than the QME's contrary opinion.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The Arbitrator's credibility determination of medical opinions was key to the outcome favoring the applicant.
From the decision · page 31Savage were the most persuasive and although in conflict with the report of the Qualified Medical
Evaluator (Dr. Fishman), the Arbitrator found the opinion of Dr. Savage, finding the ITP was
caused by the applicant taking the preventative drug [ ]. because of the industrial injury to better
reasoned and more persuasive, especially considering the fact the applicant developed symptoms
immediately after taking the drugs and the additional facts set for above.