By Taylor Skees, staff attorney, Memphis

Last week, I wrote about oral arguments earlier this month involving competing expert opinions in a complicated chemical exposure claim. The Appeals Board has since affirmed.

In Randall v. Food Lion, Wilma Randall asserted that the trial court erred in denying her request for medical benefits. The trial court weighed expert opinions and found Randall didn’t offer sufficient evidence to indicate a likelihood that she would prevail at trial.

The Appeals Board reviewed the medical evidence. Randall’s treating physician, Dr. Lambert, believed Randall’s condition was from exposure to cleaning agents at work. Dr. Lambert did acknowledge that she didn’t review all of Randall’s medical records. And, although Dr. Lambert speculated as to which cleaning agents could cause Randall’s condition, she didn’t have a list of the specific cleaning agents Randall used at work, nor how long she’d been using them.

Dr. Holstege, Food Lion’s expert, conducted a records review and had access to more thorough records than Dr. Lambert did. Notably, he had access to all Randall’s medical records, and to documents showing which cleaning agents she used at work. He concluded that her condition was likely caused by an infection, such as COVID-19, as opposed to chemical exposure—even though she had never tested positive for COVID.

After review of this evidence, the Appeals Board concluded that the trial court didn’t err in giving greater weight to Dr. Holstege’s opinion.

The Board wrote:

“The trial court concluded that Dr. Holstege’s opinion was entitled to greater weight because he had reviewed a more complete set of medical records, radiological studies, and documentation regarding the cleaning agents used in Employee’s workplace. Dr. Lambert, on the other hand, acknowledged she had not reviewed those same materials prior to forming her opinion. In short, our review of the record indicates the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s determinations.”

The trial court’s decision was interlocutory, so the Board remanded the case.

A little fall color near Pleasantville, Tennessee. Best enjoyed with no cell service. Photo by the author.