ther favorite win was a disallowance for a claimant who was alleging chemical exposure in the work place, but was never exposed to the chemical. This was a favorite win because all the doctors, including the IME, unanimously gave causal relationship. However, just in time for writing the Memorandum of Law,  a new Third Department case came down stating that if the doctor’s opinions are based on a faulty premise, they are not credible. The case had a very similar fact pattern including an IME which also gave causal relationship. Through witness testimony we were able to prove the chemical exposure claimant alleged occurred never actually occurred, and therefore every doctor in the claim based their opinion of the faulty premise that there was an exposure. The claim was ultimately disallowed, as the WCLJ credited the testimony of the lay witnesses over the claimant.</li>