Vermont Bar Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2 VBA Journal, Summer Issue, Vol. 48, No. 2 | Page 35

www.vtbar.org between the injury and the disability or need for medical treatment. Furthermore, claims examiners are now asking for an ex- planation of how the job duty caused the injury or the case will be denied. Although not necessary for medical treatment, a medical record must clearly indicate the doctor’s opinion as to the relationship be- tween the injury and the medical treat- ment in order to be approved by OWCP. A doctor’s opinions and conclusions on a causal relationship must be supported with reasoned analysis and objective findings. Once again, not typically included in a doc- tor’s medical records, but for treatment to be approved by OWCP, a doctor must justi- fy his or her opinions in the medical record itself or separate narrative. A doctor must conclude that his or her opinions are to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty” basis. A doctor does not need to know definitively that a medical condition was related to work, just that it is more likely than not the result of a work-re- lated injury or condition. A doctor’s opin- ion should never be equivocal. He or she should not use terms such as “appears” or “might be” or “likely.” These words do not meet the more probable than not basis and will result in a denial of the injured worker’s claim. We always advise doctors to include the following magic words in their medical records: “it is my opinion that to a reason- able degree of medical certainty that the (describe medical condition) was caused/ aggravated/accelerated by (describe work injury).” There are several types