What is the standard for assessing credibility and reliability of evidence at a medical malpractice hearing?

Similarly, I found the worker not credible. As noted above, although she appeared earnest in demeanour, she was an inadequate historian. She was unable to provide an accurate and consistent time frame for describing her work duties, her work stations, or when her symptoms started and developed. The standard for evaluating the credibility and reliability of evidence was established in the case of Faryna v. Chorny[1]. In cases where there is conflict of evidence, credibility cannot be gauged solely on the test of the conviction of a witness; the worker’s belief as to what occurred. A decision-maker must test a worker’s story to examine its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions; the story must be in harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities that a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in the circumstances. In my view, the preponderance of probabilities in this case does not support the conclusion the worker’s version of events as presented at the oral hearing was credible and reliable.