Lacking clear and convincing evidence, the PDES process assumes an injury or disease is:

• A. Presumed in the line of duty and not intentional
• B. Proved
• C. Not work-related
• D. Not compensable

Answer: (A)

When evidence is not clear and convincing, PDES uses a default presumption that the injury or disease occurred in the line of duty and was not the result of the individual’s own misconduct. This keeps the case moving forward toward benefits while more information is collected, rather than prematurely denying or proving the claim.

This aligns with the idea that, in the absence of definitive evidence to the contrary, the injury is treated as work-related and not due to intentional wrongdoing. Therefore, the best choice reflects that presumption: it is presumed in the line of duty and not intentional.

Being proved would contradict the lack of clear and convincing evidence. Not work-related would ignore the line-of-duty presumption, and not compensable would conflict with the PDES aim to establish eligibility when evidence is incomplete.