Opinion ID: 2504328
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Commission's Construction and Application of section 42-1-172

Text: Employee argues that the Commission incorrectly construed section 42-1-172 by admitting Dr. Tountas's medical evidence, as it was not stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. [3] We agree. Section 42-1-172 provides: An injury is not considered a compensable repetitive trauma injury unless a commissioner makes a specific finding of fact by a preponderance of the evidence of a causal connection that is established by medical evidence.... As used in this section, medical evidence means expert opinion or testimony stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, documents, records, or other material that is offered by a licensed and qualified medical physician. S.C.Code Ann. § 42-1-172. The plain reading of the statute requires that opinion or testimony must be stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Id. In contrast, documents, records, or other material is not similarly modified. Id. As this Court has recognized, the use of the word `or' in a statute `is a disjunctive particle that marks an alternative.' K & A Acquisition Group, LLC v. Island Pointe, LLC, 383 S.C. 563, 580, 682 S.E.2d 252, 261 (2009). Here, the legislature intentionally used or after a series of commas to expand the definition of medical evidence beyond opinion or testimony. S.C.Code Ann. § 42-1-172. This Court has said that words should be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation. State v. Sweat, 386 S.C. 339, 350, 688 S.E.2d 569, 575 (2010) (citation omitted). Because the statute does not require that documents, records, or other material be stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, we will not expand its plain meaning or interpolate this requirement. [4] Id. Consequently, we must address whether Dr. Tountas's statement constitutes an opinion or testimony that must be stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. S.C.Code Ann. § 42-1-172. Employer contends that Dr. Tountas's letter represents documents, records, or other material that need not be stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. The Commission agreed with Employer and pointed out that a contrary interpretation and application of the statute would require this Court to ignore eleven years of Employee's prior medical history and reports merely because they do not contain the magic phrase within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. We note that Employee does not challenge the other admitted medical evidence, and therefore the only issue we decide here is the admissibility of Dr. Tountas's statement. While we recognize that medical records will often also contain physicians' opinions, in this instance, Dr. Tountas was not Employee's treating physician, and Employer specially sought out Dr. Tountas to evaluate Employee and issue a medical opinion to decide the compensability of Employee's claim. Under these facts, Dr. Tountas's letter does not constitute documents, records, or other material, but is an opinion or testimony that must be stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Id. § 42-1-172. We stress, however, that our opinion is a narrow one limited to medical evidence given by expert opinion or testimony as provided for in section 42-1-172 and the facts of this case. See id. ( As used in this section, `medical evidence' means....) (emphasis added). In the alternative, it has also been argued that if Dr. Tountas's statement constitutes an opinion or testimony, the requirement of section 42-1-172 applies only to claimants and not defendants. The statutory language makes no such distinction, so we decline to adopt this forced construction. See Sweat, 386 S.C. at 350, 688 S.E.2d at 575 (finding words should be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation.) (citation omitted). Thus, we reverse the Commission's decision to admit Dr. Tountas's medical opinion.