To be found credible, a medical opinion must demonstrate – at the very least – that it is taking into consideration the specifics of an Appellant’s medical history. It is not sufficient for a doctor to merely claim that they have “taken into account” the history and then move directly to a conclusion. An understandable analysis is a vital part of a credible medical opinion.
Our duty to evaluate the quality of medical opinions is recognized by the Federal Court. This is part of the analytical process, as affirmed in the case of King2, when the Federal Court wrote that the Board cannot be expected to simply “rubber stamp” any medical opinion put before it.
In this case the doctor – in neither of his two opinions – explained how he could reach his conclusion absent any record of shoulder injury at the time of the 2003 accident, absent any recorded shoulder complaints, and absent any other injury during the Appellant’s military service.
If anything, the doctor appears to be standing for the proposition that the shoulder disabilities have developed from the other parts of the body that were recorded as having been injured in 2003. Such would be a consequential relationship, which is not presently before the Board. We are limited to the direct service connection under Section 45 of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act.