In Leist v. LIRC, 183 Wis. 2d 450, 457, 515 N.W.2d 268 (1994), LIRC found legitimate doubt as to whether the claimant had sustained a back injury attributable to a work incident. LIRC relied upon inconsistencies between Leist's testimony and the opinion of his doctor-who unequivocally stated that a work incident had caused Leist's injury. The court of appeals disagreed with LIRC, determining that because Leist's doctor's medical opinion was never discredited by countervailing expert medical opinion, the evidence was unrefuted; therefore, there was insufficient evidence to raise a legitimate doubt as to whether a work incident had caused Leist's injury. See Leist, 183 Wis. 2d at 457. The supreme court affirmed the court of appeals decision but rejected any requirement that LIRC be required to produce countervailing expert testimony to establish a legitimate doubt as to the claimant's cause of injury. See 183 Wis. 2d at 453-454. In addressing the alleged inconsistencies in Leist's testimony, the court noted that no facts had been presented to challenge the veracity of Leist's testimony or the accuracy of his doctor's opinion. LIRC's finding of inherent inconsistencies between Leist's testimony and his doctor's opinion was unsupported.