Opinion ID: 1439055
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the claim must be remanded for reconsideration

Text: When the employer challenged the probative value of the claimant's medical evidence, the trial judge postponed his ruling on that issue. On this record, we presume it was not until the claimant had received a copy of the order denying her permanent disability compensation that she learned of her fatal evidentiary void. This is not a case in which the employer's medical evidence was found to have been more persuasive or believable than that of the claimant. The denial of permanent disability award was not rested here on a judicial finding of no impairment, but rather on a complete failure of claimant's medical proof as to her compensable rating. Whether and to what degree the claimant is permanently impaired is an issue that has yet to be determined. The employer's probative value challenge operated as the functional equivalent of a district court demurrer to that part of claimant's evidence which adduced an expert opinion as to the extent of her compensable permanent partial impairment. Indeed, no other acceptable counterpart of a nisi prius demurrer is available in the Workers' Compensation Court for challenging the legal sufficiency of a party's evidence or of some essential element to support or defend against the claim. [11] Here, the trial tribunal in essence found only that its order could not rest on claimant's evidence alone for a decision on whether she is or is not permanently disabled, since she utterly failed to adduce any probative medical evidence to establish a compensable disability rating. The claimant should have been either allowed to substitute another evaluation for the flawed rating or invited to stand on her proof. [12] Because this claimant was given no opportunity either to stand on her adduced medical evidence or to secure a replacement for the flawed but apparently curable evaluation, [13] this claim must be remanded for reconsideration in a manner consistent with today's pronouncement. [14] CERTIORARI IS GRANTED; THE COURT OF APPEALS' OPINION IS VACATED; THE TRIAL TRIBUNAL'S DENIAL OF PERMANENT DISABILITY COMPENSATION IS VACATED; THE CLAIM IS REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION IN FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. HARGRAVE, C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, DOOLIN and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. ALMA WILSON, J., concurs by reason of stare decisis. KAUGER, J., concurs in result. SIMMS, J., dissents.