 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Components Manufacturing Company v. Fugate2/12/2002
Modified: 03/12/2002
Mandate Issued: 03/07/2002
__ P.3d __
PROCEEDING TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF A THREE-JUDGE PANEL OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT HONORABLE CHERRI FARRAR, TRIAL JUDGE
SUSTAINED
Employer and Insurance Carrier seek review of an order of a Workers' Compensation Court three-judge panel affirming the trial court finding of a job-related injury to Claimant's "LEFT THUMB AND LEFT HAND (AGGRAVATION OF A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION)." Employer and Insurance Carrier do not dispute that Claimant hurt her left thumb while working on July 5, 2000. They have stressed, however, that x-rays taken during treatment on July 5 and July 7 revealed no fractures, dislocation, osseous or joint pathology. They also note that the injury was diagnosed as a contusion or bruise and Claimant was released to return to work with restrictions that were to continue only until July 10. While on a "light duty" assignment, Claimant's performance was found unsatisfactory and she was terminated. Complaining of pain and inhibited use of her left hand after July 10, Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim on August 23, 2000. Following trial of the claim on November 7, 2000, the case was submitted without the court ruling on Claimant's request for a specialist. Then, on November 28, 2000, the court appointed an Independent Medical Examiner and later received the IME report over objections filed by both parties. The appointment of the IME after submission is the primary complaint made by Employer and Insurance Carrier on review.
Employer and Insurance Carrier believe that the trial court lacked authority to appoint an IME after submission of the case and without prior notice to the parties. They basically contend that the instant case did not come within the specific circumstance in Workers' Compensation Court Rule 18A, 85 O.S. Supp. 2000, ch. 4, app., for appointment of an IME after submission. They further contend that a post-submission appointment is not authorized by 85 O.S. Supp. 2000 ยง 17, the general statute governing appointment of an IME. They also urge that the post-submission appointment worked a deprivation of due process. Because these assignments of error involve the interpretation and application of a court rule and a statute, we are presented with a question of law that will be decided de novo.
We begin with the text of Rule 18A. This rule provides in pertinent part:
All cases set for trial shall be tried and fully submitted for decision on the date of the trial, except those cases requiring an independent medical examiner or in which a party has elected to cure a defect in evidence pursuant to Rule 23, and in such other cases as the Court, in its discretion, may determine. Any party who is unable to submit the case on the date of trial shall advise the assigned judge prior to the commencement of the trial.
This rule plainly applies to all cases and the only exception provided for post-submission appointment of an IME extends to "cases requiring an independent medical examiner." We note that the rule grants general discretion to the trial court to make "other cases" an exception to the submission rule, but the context indicates that such "other cases" are cases other than those specifically mentioned.
To determine whether the instant case is a case "requiring an independent medical examiner," we must first determine what the Workers' Compensation Court and Oklahoma Supreme Court intended by the term "cases requiring an independent medical examiner" when each court approved Rule 18A. The best source for answering this question are the provisions of law that address the appointment o
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|