Opinion ID: 1662181
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: As a Medical Issue

Text: Maximum medical improvement is statutorily defined as meaning the date after which no further significant recovery from or significant lasting improvement to a personal injury can reasonably be anticipated, based upon reasonable medical probability. Minn.Stat. § 176.011, subd. 25 (1986). New Mech repeatedly asserts that MMI is, by definition, purely a medical issue. It urges that the decision of the compensation judge be reinstated because it was in accordance with the only expert medical opinion as to whether the employee had reached MMI. Dr. Litman's opinion was that the employee had reached MMI from the January 2, 1986 injury. If based upon reasonable medical probability means a compensation judge can only base her decision on an expert medical opinion, Mr. Hammer must be considered to have reached MMI. Such an interpretation, however, would prevent the judge from evaluating the reasonableness of the opinion and the credibility of the doctor. A finding of MMI is one of ultimate fact. It determines the rights and liabilities of the parties. A determination of MMI results in the end of an employee's right to temporary total compensation and requires that the degree of permanent disability be ascertained. MMI is a controlling legal standard and, therefore, it is the responsibility of the compensation judge to evaluate the employee's condition as documented by medical records, medical opinions and other data and circumstances. Medical probability does not mean only the opinion of a physician. Indeed, the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry has prepared a list of MMI factors to be considered by rehabilitation specialists at administrative conferences. Factors include the history of improvement, current treatment, pre-existing conditions, and proposed treatment. Information suggested for review includes opinions from health care providers, independent examinations, other medical or vocational reports and statements of the various parties at the conference. See Minnesota Dep't of Labor & Industry, Health Care Provider's Guide to the Minnesota Workers' Compensation System 11-12 (rev. ed. 1987). MMI is not determined solely by a physician's opinion. We believe that a finding of MMI, like a determination of the degree of permanency, rests with the compensation judge, not the medical profession. See Hosking v. Metropolitan House Movers Corp., 272 Minn. 390, 398, 138 N.W.2d 404, 409 (1965). In this case, the compensation judge had a duty to consider not only Dr. Litman's report, but also the credibility of that witness and his report in light of all the other evidence presented. Here, because Mr. Hammer was undergoing treatment at the time of the hearing and subsequently underwent further surgery, the WCCA was clearly justified in reversing the compensation judge's MMI finding.