This was not the date set for hearing on the case. Accompanying the subpoena was correspondence from plaintiff's counsel telling defendant that it could comply with the subpoena by sending copies of the documents to plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff's counsel refused to pay. Plaintiff's complaint was filed on December 17, 1997. The order was entered nunc pro tunc July 27, 1998.
Defendant first argues that plaintiff's subpoena was improper.
Section 16 of the Act provides that the Commission or any arbitrator designated by the Commission has the authority, on the request of either party, to issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. The subpoena at issue in this case was returnable on a date other than the date of the hearing on the merits. However, neither defendant nor the employer objected to the subpoena or moved to quash it. Therefore, any argument regarding the propriety of the subpoena has been waived. Defendant next argues that the Act does not provide for pretrial discovery of medical records.