Cited by

“Medical causation is a matter properly within the province of medical experts, and the board is required to base its findings on this issue upon the medical evidence rather than solely upon its own lay opinion.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 417 (1996) (quotation and brackets omitted).

“To make out a claim for workers’ compensation, a claimant is required to show that her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 415-16 (1996) (quotation and brackets omitted).

For support, the petitioner cites Appeal of Kehoe for the proposition that, “[b]ecause a claimant’s treating physicians have great familiarity with [the claimant’s] condition, their reports must be accorded substantial weight.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 417 (1996) (quotation omitted).

The test for medical causation requires the claimant to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that work-related activities probably caused or contributed to the injury as a matter of medical fact.

RSA 281-A:26; Vredenburg, 188 P.3d at 1089-90; Kahle, 428 A.2d at 917; Whitehead, 43 So.2d at 465; see also Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 416 (1996) (causal relationship between work and injury is generally proven by a preponderance of the evidence).

eve is irritating the right L5 nerve root and most likely was caused from the incident that occurred in the convenience store many years ago.” “The test for medical causation requires the claimant to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the work-related activities probably caused or contributed to the employee’s disabling injury as a matter of medical fact.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 417 (1996) (quotation, emphasis, and brackets omitted).

Appeal of Kelly, 167 N.H. 489, 491 (2015); Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 415 (1996).

Although an administrative board is free to reject even an uncontradicted medical opinion so long as it identifies the considerations supporting its decision to do so, Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 418-19 (1996), we do not interpret the CAB’s decision as having rejected the medical evidence provided by Kim, see Guy, 157 N.H. at 649.

Appeal of Kelly, 167 N.H. 489, 491 (2015); Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 415 (1996).

In general, the Estate is correct that “[m]edical causation is a matter properly within the province of medical experts, and the [CAB] is required to base its findings on this issue upon the medical evidence rather than solely upon its own lay opinion.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 417 (1996) (quotation and brackets omitted).

The employee, however, points to our decisions in Appeal of Redimix Cos., 158 N.H. 494 (2009), and Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412 (1996), and argues that New Hampshire has adopted either the positional risk or actual risk test.

Legal causation entails a showing that the claimant’s injury is in some way work-related, while medical causation requires a showing that the injury was actually caused by the work-related event or condition.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 416 (1996) (citation omitted).

“To show this, the claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [his] work-related activities probably caused or contributed to [his] disability.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 416 (1996) (quotation omitted).

The tribunal’s findings of fact will not be disturbed if they are supported by competent evidence in the record, upon which the tribunal’s decision reasonably could have been made.

In the workers’ compensation context, we have held that the issue of medical causation is a matter properly left for medical experts, and that the board’s findings on that issue must be based upon the medical evidence rather than solely upon its own lay opinion.

The board’s findings of fact will not be disturbed if they are supported by competent evidence in the record, upon which the board’s decision reasonably could have been made.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 415 (1996) (citations omitted).

The board was entitled to give these records “substantial weight.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 417, 686 A.2d 749, 753 (1996) (quotation omitted).

re, a claimant has a preexisting disease or condition prior to employment, establishing legal causation required the respondent to “show by a preponderance of the evidence that her employment contributed something substantial to her medical condition by demonstrating that the work-related conditions presented greater risks than those encountered in her non-employment activities.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 416, 686 A.2d 749, 752 (1996) (quotations and brackets omitted).

See, e.g., Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 416, 686 A.2d 749, 752 (1996).

To show this, the claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [his] work-related activities probably caused or contributed to [his] disability.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 415-16, 686 A.2d 749, 752 (1996) (quotations and citation omitted).

To make out a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, the petitioner must prove both legal and medical causation by a preponderance of the evidence.

To make out a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, the petitioner must prove both legal and medical causation.

We will not disturb the board’s findings of fact “if they are supported by competent evidence in the record upon which the board’s decision reasonably could have been made.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 415, 686 A.2d 749, 752 (1996) (citation omitted).

Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 417, 686 A.2d 749, 753 (1996); cf. Newcomb, 141 N.H. at 667, 690 A.2d at 564; Martino, 138 N.H. at 614-15, 644 A.2d at 547.

“We will overturn the board’s decision only for errors of law, or if we are satisfied by a clear preponderance of the evidence before us that the order is unjust or unreasonable.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 415, 686 A.2d 749, 752 (1996); see RSA 541:13 (1997).

“The board’s findings of fact will not be disturbed if they are supported by competent evidence in the record upon which the board’s decision reasonably could have been made.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 415, 686 A.2d 749, 752 (1996) (citation omitted).

“Medical causation is a matter properly within the province of medical experts, and the board is required to base its findings on this issue upon the medical evidence rather than solely upon its own lay opinion.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 417, 686 A.2d 749, 753 (1996) (quotation and brackets omitted).

RSA 541:13 (1997); Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 415, 686 A.2d 749, 752 (1996).

In order to establish medical causation, the claimant bears the burden of demonstrating “by a preponderance of the evidence, that the work related activities probably caused or contributed to the employee’s disabling injury as a matter of medical fact.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 417, 686 A.2d 749, 752-53 (1996) (quotation, emphasis, and brackets omitted).

“We will overturn the board’s decision only for errors of law, or if we are satisfied by a clear preponderance of the evidence before us that the order is unjust or unreasonable.” Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412, 415, 686 A.2d 749, 752 (1996).