In Michau v. Georgetown County, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that medical opinions related to causation submitted in repetitive trauma claims must be stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.
In Michau, the claimant alleged he sustained a compensable repetitive trauma injury to both shoulders. At the hearing, he presented an opinion of his treating orthopedist who stated, “I do believe within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that these repetitive work activities over the years of his shoulders [sic] have resulted in his severe osteoarthritis of both shoulders.”
The employer and carrier obtained a second opinion from an arthritis specialist. The specialist stated it was his opinion that the claimant had a long history of arthritis involving multiple joints, and there was no indication from the job description or his employment that would relate any of the claimant's shoulder problems to his work.
The claimant appealed, stating that this second option report should be excluded because it was not stated "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty."
The claimant appealed, stating that this second option report should be excluded because it was not stated "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty."
The Court agreed and reversed the admission of the report. The Court said section the SC Workers Compensation Code expressly creates an additional heightened standard for repetitive trauma injury cases. It specifically, it requires medical evidence in the form of "expert opinion or testimony [to be] stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty."
The Court also that in order for such an injury to be compensable a commissioner must make a specific finding of fact by a preponderance of the evidence of a causal connection that is established by "medical evidence," which in this case meant expert opinion or testimony stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.