Opinion ID: 6344299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: medical panel qualifications

Text: ¶27 We first address Gamez‘s contention that the Board erred when it upheld the appointment of Dr. Biggs as the medical panel chair because Dr. Biggs does not specialize in the treatment of the condition at issue in this case. ¶28 Subsection 601(1)(c) of the Workers‘ Compensation Act mandates that a medical panel appointed to resolve the controverted aspects of a workers‘ compensation claim ―shall consist of one or more physicians specializing in the treatment of the disease or condition involved in the claim.‖ UTAH CODE § 34A-2-601(1)(c). Gamez reads this subsection to mean that all panel members must specialize in the relevant condition. So under Gamez‘s interpretation of subsection 601(1)(c), a medical panel may consist of one or more members, and all of those members must specialize in the medical condition at issue. 8 Cite as: 2022 UT 20 Opinion of the Court ¶29 The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review for correctness. Waite v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 2017 UT 86, ¶ 5, 416 P.3d 635. ―When interpreting a statute, our primary objective is to ascertain the intent of the legislature.‖ McKitrick v. Gibson, 2021 UT 48, ¶ 19, 496 P.3d 147 (citation omitted). Because ―[t]he best evidence of the legislature‘s intent is the plain language of the statute itself, we look first to the plain language of the statute.‖ Bagley v. Bagley, 2016 UT 48, ¶ 10, 387 P.3d 1000 (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). In doing so, we read ―each term according to its ordinary and accepted meaning.‖ State v. Barrett, 2005 UT 88, ¶ 29, 127 P.3d 682 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶30 The best support for Gamez‘s argument is the word ―consist‖ in the statutory text. ―Consist‖ means ―to be composed or made up,‖ usually followed by ―of.‖ Consist, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ry/consist (last visited Feb. 24, 2022). So there is some textual support for reading the statute to mean that a medical panel must be made up of one or more physicians who all specialize in the condition at issue. ¶31 But this is not the best reading of the statute because it requires us to accept that a panel may consist of only one member. And as we will explain, we agree with WCF that a panel generally cannot, by definition, consist of just one person. So the phrase ―one or more‖ necessarily relates to the number of specialists required on a medical panel, and not the total number of panelists. See UTAH CODE § 34A-2-601(1)(c). ¶32 ―Panel‖ generally refers to at least two or more people, and this meaning is consistent throughout various dictionaries.9 __________________________________________________________ 9 Dictionaries, which serve as ―an historical record . . . of the meanings which words in fact have borne,‖ provide a useful starting point for the assessment of ordinary meaning. State v. Bagnes, 2014 UT 4, ¶ 14, 322 P.3d 719 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). And while ―the dictionary alone is often inadequate to the task of interpretation because different definitions may support different interpretations,‖ GeoMetWatch Corp. v. Utah State Univ. Rsch. Found., 2018 UT 50, ¶ 21, 428 P.3d 1064 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), the term ―panel‖ presents no such ambiguity. 9 GAMEZ v. LABOR COMMISSION Opinion of the Court For example, Merriam Webster‘s Dictionary defines panel as ―a group of persons selected for some service (such as investigation or arbitration).‖ Panel, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panel (last visited Feb. 24, 2022) (emphasis added). The Oxford English Dictionary defines panel as ―a small group of people brought together to discuss, investigate, or decide upon a particular matter.‖ Panel, OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, www.oed.com/view/Entry/136796 (last visited Feb. 24, 2022) (emphasis added). And the Collins English Dictionary defines panel as ―a small group of people who are chosen to do something, for example, to discuss something in public or to make a decision.‖ Panel, COLLINS, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us /dictionary/english/panel (last visited Feb. 24, 2022) (emphasis added). Further, while Black‘s Law Dictionary defines ―panel‖ solely in reference to potential jurors or selected arbiters, it too refers exclusively to a ―group‖ or ―set‖ of persons or judges. Panel, BLACK‘S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). ¶33 This commonly accepted meaning is reflected in the ALJ‘s statement that ―Adjudication Division policy requires that medical panels have at least two members on them.‖ And while Gamez argues that the legislature intended ―only specialists‖ to serve on a medical panel, ―we have repeatedly declined invitations to interpret statutes contrary to their plain language even when a party offers an interpretation that might better advance the [legislative] purpose.‖ Zilleruelo v. Commodity Transporters, Inc., 2022 UT 1, ¶ 40, 506 P.3d 509. ¶34 ―When we can ascertain the intent of the legislature from the statutory terms alone, no other interpretive tools are needed.‖ Bagley, 2016 UT 48, ¶ 10 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the plain meaning of panel as a group of two or more is clear. By extension, the phrase ―one or more‖ necessarily speaks to the number of specialists required to participate on a panel, and not the number of panel members in total. See UTAH CODE § 34A-2-601(1)(c) (―A medical panel . . . shall consist of one or more physicians specializing in the treatment of the disease or condition involved in the claim.‖). ¶35 Accordingly, the plain meaning of the statute is that at least one of the physicians who serves on a medical panel must specialize in the condition or injury involved in the claim. But it does not require this of all panel members. And because the statute is unambiguous, we ―have no need to resort to other 10 Cite as: 2022 UT 20 Opinion of the Court methods of construction,‖ O’Keefe v. Utah State Ret. Bd., 956 P.2d 279, 281 (Utah 1998), and our analysis is at an end. ¶36 Therefore, even if Dr. Biggs does not qualify as a specialist in low-back injuries, the panel would meet the requirements of subsection 601(1)(c) because neither party disputes that Dr. Henrie so qualifies. Therefore, we conclude that the Board properly determined the medical panel in this case was suitably composed.10