Epidemiological evidence and medical guidelines based on meta-analysis cannot be deployed as general disproof of specific causation to override clinical opinions of treating and examining medical experts who have reviewed the actual radiology and examined the patient. The statutory factual causation question under s 305D(1)(a) WCRA is whether, on the balance of probabilities, the particular harm would not have occurred absent the negligence — it is not the general likelihood of a condition occurring as a matter of statistical association. Expert reports that fail to clearly identify factual assumptions, that proceed on incorrect assumptions, or that rely on epidemiological studies without enabling the court to assess the underlying data will be given less weight.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.