Opinion ID: 1801771
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Dr. Field's Evaluation Report.

Text: Schoenfeld admits the delivery of Field's evaluation report six days before trial did not comply with the hearing assignment order. The Deputy acknowledged a prejudice standard would control the admissibility of the report as evidence. The Deputy inquired as to how the employer was prejudiced. Counsel for FDL Foods urged they were prejudiced because counsel did not have time to depose Field on the conclusions of his report or the basis for his impairment rating. The Deputy found the admission of the evaluation report would not be prejudicial. She recognized that Field was the treating physician, not a hired expert. She also recognized that FDL Foods had received the surgery reports and clinical notes of the treating physician and had offered them as evidence. Finally, the Deputy noted that Schoenfeld could dismiss the case, refile it, and get the report in, which to her was a waste of time. On appeal, the Commissioner recognized the employer's right to depose and cross-examine the doctor who prepared the report and to have the deposition admitted as evidence. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 873-4.18 (1997) (formerly Iowa Admin. Code r. 343-4.18). The Commissioner concluded that service of the evaluation report six days before the hearing did not give the employer sufficient time to depose Field or secure contrary evidence from another physician. The Commissioner found the admission of Field's evaluation report was prejudicial, and he excluded the evaluation report from the record. We must determine if the Commissioner's ruling was an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when a ruling rests on grounds or reasons clearly untenable or unreasonable. Squealer Feeds, 530 N.W.2d at 681. In other words, abuse of discretion is synonymous with unreasonableness, and involves lack of rationality, focusing on whether the agency has made a decision clearly against reason and evidence. Stephenson, 522 N.W.2d at 831. Exclusion of evidence is the most severe sanction available under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 125(c), the rule concerning discovery of experts, and is justified only when prejudice would result. Id. We have been reluctant to reverse the Commissioner's imposition of the sanction of exclusion for noncompliance with the scheduling order or the rule that requires information thirty days prior to hearing. See Dunlavey v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co., 526 N.W.2d 845, 859 (Iowa 1995); Stephenson, 522 N.W.2d at 831-32. However, under the circumstances of this case, we believe the Commissioner abused his discretion in excluding the doctor's evaluation report. Field was Schoenfeld's treating physician. His evaluation report is limited to an assessment of the right knee he treated. As such, the duty to designate a treating physician as an expert witness under rule 125(c) is limited. See Carson v. Webb, 486 N.W.2d 278, 280 (Iowa 1992). Field had provided the employer with detailed medical information from the date Schoenfeld was first examined in November 1992 to his last treatment in April 1993. The employer had also received the hospital operative records and had offered them as exhibits at the hearing. The Deputy's pretrial order stated additional exhibits would be allowed if there was no unfair surprise to the other party. Schoenfeld's petition claimed permanent partial disability benefits. Field was the treating physician and the logical person to evaluate the permanency of the injury. FDL Foods was not unfairly surprised by the admission of the evaluation report. We conclude FDL Foods was not prejudiced by the delay in securing Field's report. It was not reasonable for the Commissioner to exclude the exhibit based on the delay. After being advised by the Deputy that the exhibit would be admitted, the employer made no request for a continuance of the hearing. The exclusion of the evaluation report, under these circumstances, would run contrary to the primary purpose of the workers' compensation statute, which is for the benefit of the worker. See Ehteshamfar v. UTA Engineered Sys. Div., 555 N.W.2d 450, 453 (Iowa 1996). We remand this case to the district court for entry of an order remanding the case to the Commissioner for a new hearing on the issue of permanent partial disability benefits. The Commissioner should consider the record made before the Deputy and all exhibits, including Field's evaluation report. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED AND REMANDED.