*26 (DALA 7/29/2016) Sean Stokes-de Salvo v. State Bd. of Ret.,CR-12-401 citing Yoffa v. , 111 (1939); (1942); Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Hovhanesian v. New York Life Ins. Co., CR-99-296 (DALA), aff'd (CRAB 2000). Dr. Sewall having found Donnell v. State Bd. of Ret., the neck injury disabling correctly considered the value of future physical therapy Petitioner’s treatment. 36 Mass. App. Ct. 99, 113 (1994). See Retirement Bd. of Revere v. CRAB, The Petitioner argues that Dr. report should be used to refute the Linson’s post-panel panel majority opinion. This argument ignores that is no requirement that the panel “[t]here physicians agree with the opinions or findings of other Turner v. State Bd. of Ret., clinicians.” CR- 06-27 *10 (DALA 2007) (finding that panel did not employ erroneous standard and panel was not obligated to agree with opinions of other fact that another physician physicians). “[T]he offered a contrary opinion... is not evidence of the use of an erroneous standard by the medical CR-07-511* 7 (DALA decision March 19, 2009; no CRAB Hickney v. State Bd. of Ret., panel.” decision); CR-06-222 (DALA 2007) (noting that see Jenkins v. State Bd. of Ret., “contrary opinions cannot take the place of the medical see also panel’s properly made assessment”); CR-12-501 * 8 (DALA 10/2/2015) (post-panel medical reports not Grannum v. State Bd. of Ret., relevant on medical issue properly addressed by panel). CONCLUSION AND ORDER The Petitioner did not establish that the Regional Medical Panel lacked pertinent information or used an erroneous standard, and I, therefore, affirm the decision of the Respondent to deny the claim for accidental disability benefits. Petitioner’s DIVISON OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
Sean Stokes-de Salvo v. State Bd. of Ret.,CR-12-401 *26 (DALA 7/29/2016) citing Yoffa v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., , 111 (1939); Hovhanesian v. New York Life Ins. Co., (1942); Donnell v. State Bd. of Ret., CR-99-296 (DALA), aff'd (CRAB 2000). Dr. Sewall having found the Petitioner’s neck injury disabling correctly considered the value of future physical therapy treatment. See Retirement Bd. of Revere v. CRAB, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 99, 113 (1994). The Petitioner argues that Dr. Linson’s post-panel report should be used to refute the panel majority opinion. This argument ignores that “[t]here is no requirement that the panel physicians agree with the opinions or findings of other clinicians.” Turner v. State Bd. of Ret., CR- 06-27 *10 (DALA 2007) (finding that panel did not employ erroneous standard and panel was not obligated to agree with opinions of other physicians). “[T]he fact that another physician offered a contrary opinion... is not evidence of the use of an erroneous standard by the medical panel.” Hickney v. State Bd. of Ret., CR-07-511* 7 (DALA decision March 19, 2009; no CRAB decision); see Jenkins v. State Bd. of Ret., CR-06-222 (DALA 2007) (noting that “contrary opinions cannot take the place of the medical panel’s properly made assessment”); see also Grannum v. State Bd. of Ret., CR-12-501 * 8 (DALA 10/2/2015) (post-panel medical reports not relevant on medical issue properly addressed by panel). CONCLUSION AND ORDER The Petitioner did not establish that the Regional Medical Panel lacked pertinent information or used an erroneous standard, and I, therefore, affirm the decision of the Respondent to deny the Petitioner’s claim for accidental disability benefits. DIVISON OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
Hallen%2520v.%2520State%2520%2520Bd.%2520of%2520Retirement%2520-%2520Decision%2520-%252006-09-2017.docx