Opinion ID: 6536841
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Board May Order An SIME On Remand.

Text: Tobar's central argument on appeal is that the Board failed in its duties to her as a self-represented litigant because it did not advise her that she could request an SIME under AS 23.30.095(k). The Act authorizes the Board to order an SIME under both that statute and another, AS 23.30.110(g). 23 Alaska Statute 23.30.095(k) permits an SIME if there is a medical dispute regarding [a] determination[ ] of ... medical stability. Either party may request an SIME under AS 23.30.095(k), or the Board may order one on its own motion. 24 The Board and the Commission have interpreted AS 23.30.110(g) as allowing the Board to order an SIME when there is a significant gap in the medical or scientific evidence and an opinion by an independent medical examiner or other scientific examination will help the board in resolving the issue before it. 25 As we have discussed, the date of medical stability was both important and disputed in this case, and the date selected by the Board is not supported by substantial evidence. While an SIME is discretionary and not always appropriate, the circumstances of this case appear to favor its use: the claimant does not have a lawyer, she has limited English proficiency, and she apparently failed to call the Board's attention to existing medical records that were important to her case, contributing to the Board's factual errors. We are not ordering that the Board require an SIME on remand, however. Whether to do so remains subject to the Board's discretion.