Opinion ID: 1150782
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Type of Communications Contemplated

Text: Claimant next argues that the workers' compensation statutes and the rules, themselves, do not envision these types of communications. Moreover, claimant asserts that the existence of numerous detailed workers' compensation provisions governing written reports by physicians [9] manifests an intent to make written reports the exclusive mode of communication between an employer's lawyer and a claimant's treating physicians. We find this argument unpersuasive. ORS 656.252(1) authorizes promulgation of rules regarding physician reporting. [10] Subsection (1) does not refer to writing, but only to reports. We find no reason to presume a legislative intent to require all reports to be written or to restrict verbal communication between employers or their agents and injured workers' physicians. We note, in fact, that subsection (2) of ORS 656.252 explicitly requires physicians to advise insurers and self-insured employers within five days of a worker's anticipated release to return to work or the reopening of a claimant's closed claim and subsection (5) requires physicians to notify insurers or self-insured employers within five days of changes in physicians or referrals to new physicians. Nothing in the statute addresses how physicians are to report to, advise, or notify insurers or self-insured employers so long as the relay of information is prompt and correct. Claimant further argues that repeated references to written reports in administrative rules reflect a policy of preventing unnecessary intrusion into the confidentiality of the physician/patient relationship. This argument, however, also is belied by ORS 656.252(1), which provides that the purpose of the written report requirement is to insure the prompt and correct reporting and payment of compensation in compensable injuries. The legislative history reveals considerable concern about promptness, but no discussion of protecting claimant confidentiality. See, e.g., Minutes, House Committee on Labor and Management, March 22, 1967, pp. 1-3. ORS 656.252 goes on to absolve complying physicians from legal liability for disclosure of medical confidences. [11] We conclude that physician-patient confidentiality was of scant concern to the legislature in this context, especially in the face of competing concerns for promptness and accuracy. ORS 656.252 is a non-exclusive outline of the types of communications physicians are required to initiate with insurers or self-insured employers. It is not an outline of any particular or exclusive mode for such communications. Therefore, the Board was free to interpret the statute in its rules to define permissible modes of communication. The Board, in its opinion in Alan W. Hayes, Jr., supra, interpreted the rules consistent with the stated purpose of the written reports. The Board stated: We find nothing in the statutes or rules requiring an insurer to give claimant prior notice of its intent to contact his or her physician. Further, we find such a requirement is inconsistent with our stated policy of full, fair and expeditious disclosure of information between the parties. It is also inconsistent with the legislature's intent to create a compensation system that reduces litigation and minimizes the adversarial process. 37 Van Natta at 1182. The Board was within its statutory power in so construing the statute. [12]