The case presents no more than a conflict of medical opinion evidence which the board was entitled to resolve against the claimant. There was proof that on or prior to the date in question the "mild" conjunctivitis was not disabling. There was evidence that claimant also suffered from a blepharospasm but there was ample medical proof that this condition (a closing of the eyelid) was voluntary and, indeed, that claimant was malingering. There also existed a cortical cataract...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.